|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God - a liar? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
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 Paul, I have just said that exact thing:
mike the wiz writes: It is what YOU said I was saying. You have given sites of people who don't believe in AOA, Old earthers who don't believe in AOA. That's all very good, but that is exactly what I've been saying. Infact, all those people would call God a liar as you would if AOA is true. Here's my own statement, a different one this time;
Those who do not believe in appearance of age are not calling God a liar, those who do believe in appearance of age are not calling God a liar. Those who do not believe in the universe having appearance of age, would call God a liar IF appearance of age was true - That is my more accurate position, is it fair enough? The fact is Paul, only those who disagree with AOA suggest it is deception, and only you have suggested it, and possibly Sylas, in this topic. Those who see appearance of age as a possibility or reality are infact content that it is not a deception. Therefore it is your side that is implying a deception IF appearance of age is true. Hope that satisfies you. I've tried to see this as neutrally as possible, but at the moment we are back to square one as you still think it implies deception and I don't. Do you still want me to reply to message 2 even though I did with my first post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
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". oh, I thought you meant this topic, never mind. I didn't think anyone would bother reading that silly little topic I made.
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, I ofcouse, don't think he did say it was young. Paul thinks for some reason that I am disputing the evidence for an old earth. I AM NOT. I am simply defending God as the opening post suggests a possibility of God being a liar. My main objection is to that implication. I do not think God is a liar. In the bible God shows his detestation for liars. I also, do not like liars, and don't like God being called one. If you think the universe is old and it was genuinely made >old, then I do not think you are calling God a liar. Unfortunately, PaulK is trying to put words in my mouth. If the universe was somehow created with appearance of age, I would not personally conclude that it has to be a deception - that's all. I'm glad for your words of encouragement though, and do remember I am not a YEC anymore. I suppose this has evolved into an unnecessary battle between me and PaulK, but don't worry, it's happened before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Melchior Inactive Member |
quote: I personally would express this slightly differently; The reason for an appearant age is not one of deception, and if anyone is decieved by it, it's an unintended side-effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Well Mike IF you bother to read post 85 again you will see that BEFORE the statement you quote you say "It is not my position, it is your position.". And THAT was talking about your altered version! What was the point of altering it if not to make it reflect your actual position ?
As for your revised posiiton it is still wrong. The point you are missing is that those who do NOT accept AoA - including myself - do not attribute the creation of deceptive evidence to God. AoA does that by definition. And when AoA comes up against the actual evidence then it does indeed attribute a "massive deception" on the part of God. The "light in transit" argument alone implies that the vast majority of the universe is an illusion - and that when we see a supernova more than 10,000 light years away we see an explosion that never happened destroying a star that never existed. If you want to DISCUSS the real issues then starting by addressing the points I raised in post 2. Your first post didn't do that. If you don't want to really discuss the points I raised then don't bother - some empty box-ticking enterprise is just a waste of your time and mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
Good point.
Furthermore I took a quote from one of paulk's links, but in it's entirety.
his link writes: How can we then resolve the time problem? I have heard some suggest the God simply created the world with the appearance of age. I will admit that that is possible but it seems unlikely, almost as if God was trying to fool us, very unlike God. The link seems to agree that it would SEEM he was trying to fool us, hence people's discomfort with the issue. But the person only sees it as a possible deception -> almost
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Mike, your "analogies" assumed that the evidence for an old Earth was weak and superficial. If you don't beleive that then you don't beleive that your "analogies" were valid.
And what I said no more implied that God could be a liar than the OEC sites I provided links to. The initial post in the thread specifically asked about "apparent age" - and THAT is the context of my reply. All I did was give the reasoning behind the conclusion that "apparent age" implies deception on the part of God - a conclusion that as you have seen even some creationists agree with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
And if you see post 2 I explain why that is not a viable possibility.
The most important reason is that God doesn't need to put up with "unintentional side-effects". The best you can argue is that an appearance of age is necessary in some respects - but even that fails when we consider the actual facts. For instance why would we need light from galaxies that can't even be seen with the naked eye ? Certainly not for "signs and seasons". In fact we don't need anything more than you would get from a literal reading of Genesis - a geocentric universe with all the heavenly bodies, just lights in the sky. And I'd really love to see how the success of radiometric dating could be explained by an "unintentional side-effect". A side-effect of what ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Mike, are you trying to suggest there was something wrong with my presentation of that quote ? If not then just what ARE you trying to say ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Melchior Inactive Member |
Of course it doesn't match the facts. That's sort of the whole basis of the appearant age argument.
However, I do not think that it is nessesary to attribute such a creation as being only because God wants to lie to us. I think that's a bit too extreme, and as has been pointed out, not really a common standpoint amongts believers. With such other examples as the whole free will deal, you could argue that it is done in such a way because people have an easier time to cope with things they think they can understand. Hence, it may be a lie, but it's a white lie which isn't all bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Of course if you drop the theological concerns "apparent age" is a perfect excuse. ANY evidence can be "explained" by saying that it is just an appearance. And that is why it is necessary to point out that just saying that the evidence is a misleading appearance is not enough, and that there needs to be some explanation of why the evidence is there in the first place
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
Maybe it's because it's not evidence...but facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
All I am showing is that the quote you provided was not in it's entirety. This is also a common occurence amongst your side, when quoting from the bible. The person in your quote said almost - which is a far cry from definite.
And what I said no more implied that God could be a liar than the OEC sites I provided links to. Big deal. They also can't accept AOA because of their assumption of deception. However, if maybe I was a little harsh in stating that you are accusing God of being a liar - fair enough, you are not doing that. but, if AOA is true then I think it is fair to say that you have implied deception, as believers in AOA think it is not deception.
All I did was give the reasoning behind the conclusion that "apparent age" implies deception on the part of God - a conclusion that as you have seen even some creationists agree with. Fair enough. Although you have implied a few things here; massive deception, false and forged note These are the things that did not help the debate and slowed us. If you are still hell bent on discussing evidence I would be willing to do it and offer some insight into what the YEC's will say. I will read from your evidence shortly if you are still interested.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You know Mike, I didn't think you'd trap yourself so neatly.
The extra text you quoted changed nothing as is quite obvious to anyone who compares the two. I suppose when you say "This is also a common occurence amongst your side, when quoting from the bible" you mean that you have tried this trick before. Yes, the person I quoted said "almost" - exactly as I quoted it. I suppose the juxtaposition of the charge of omission with this is an attempt to imply that I left out the "almost" - which of corse is completely false. I haven't edited post 87 - the quote is there as I cut-and-pasted it - complete with the "almost". http://EvC Forum: God - a liar? -->EvC Forum: God - a liar? Anyone who reads post 87 can see that I introduced that quote by asserting only that the YEC site found "apparent age" to be "questionable" - which is true. Anyone who compares it with your quote in post 95 can see that the ONLY additional material you quoted was the preceding question "How can we then resolve the time problem?" I could tack on the preceding sentence or the following sentence and declare your quote "incomplete" with as much reason. And the OEC sites I quoted AGREE that AoA implies deception. Like I said it's not just me. If anything "slowed" or rather prevented debate it was your own emotional reactions. The phrases you object to were perfectly justified - and you never even made a real attempt to show otherwise. I made my main argument in post 2. So far it has yet to be seriously challenged. It can stay like that so far as I'm concerned. If you want to argue against it I'll defend my position, but at this stage I'd much rather win a victory by default than put up with the mud-slinging (all too typical of YOUR side).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
It is still my position that the person was only saying almost and I still would have pointed that out. It was only a possibility when s/he mentioned appearance of age would make God dishonest, it was not a definite thing.
Actually - you didn't provide the full quote - so I haven't put myself in a trap. Also, I have shown your deliberate deceptions by picking out and highlighting the words. And still you would rather fight with me than state your evidence, whatever that might be. Here's the part you didn't quote;
How can we then resolve the time problem? - Which is significant because it is a question.
If you want to argue against it I'll defend my position, but at this stage I'd much rather win a victory by default than put up with the mud-slinging Well my friend, all you win is second place, as the main argument is over and I clearly won. You have failed to show any logic to your analogy despite my asking for the substitutions and I have shown everyone how your ilogic is only acceptable from a bias perspective of assuming deception. This will not grant you victory I'm afraid, and message 2 is irrelevant because I am not fighting against an old universe. Nice try though. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-07-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Mike, I QUOTED him as saying "almost". What he said is not an issue. What is an issue is that you seem determined to imply that I left out the "almost" when it is quite plainly there in the quote I provided.
So what would be the "full quote" The whole paragraph ? The whole article ? When you start arbitarily insisting that more material should be quoted just so you can say that someone else's quote was "incomplete" where does it end ? WHere it is convenient for Mike. The question was irrelevant because it did not address the issue - which is what the author thought of apparent age. As I said he thught it was questionable - and that is what the quote showed. And no Mik, I win. Your false accusations over the quote are a moral victory for me. You never supported your own "analogies" - even implicitly denying their validity (as you have done here again). The fact is Mike I made my case and you never addressed it. All you do is try to pretend it doesn't exist as youi do here !
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024