Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God - a liar?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 121 of 145 (98783)
04-08-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by NosyNed
04-08-2004 5:37 PM


Re: One crucial little point
If there is any defence of a young earth with an appearance of age it seems to come down to something along the lines of the unknowableness of God.
That is, the suggestion is that somehow or another the appearance, while false, is not intended by God to be deceptive. Somehow it is necessary.
Yes! Which is why I mentioned the example of a 30 year old who looks 45. The only thing I would disagree with in the above quote is "false". I have never tried to defend purposefully placed "falseness" - like Sylas's example of a footprint which would be a fake footprint. I only am defending AOA itself. The necessary side-effects that would be needful. For example - Adam being an adult intends no deception.
If it appears like a YEC argument that isn't my plan, as this topic is in the Faith and Belief section and people have implied God would be a liar, this is the implication I dislike. I am not denying any evidence of an old universe. I am showing the possibility that "deception" is only one possibility if we are going to speculate, and that I do not think God is a liar, like some would claim.
Regards, Mike.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by NosyNed, posted 04-08-2004 5:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:54 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 145 (98790)
04-08-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
04-03-2004 3:02 AM


Re: God is not a liar.
How do we get the light blue box with the quote we are trying to deal with? Anyway, Ned just in reference to the quote (and I know it's from an early post) God didn't have to creat Adam and Eve at the age that he did. Is true to secular belief, but if we are to believe biblicaly (as I do), then when God says he created them in His image then He created them in His image. He apparently would be, therefore, at the age he created Adam and Eve. Or in that range. That's my thought on it. What's your take? In Christ. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 04-03-2004 3:02 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2004 11:11 AM Zachariah has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 145 (98864)
04-09-2004 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by mike the wiz
04-08-2004 8:26 PM


Re: One crucial little point
Is that it makes no sense to wade into a debate when you don't understand what is being discussed.
Let me put it simply Mike:
It has been argued that "apprearance of age" DOES require unnecessary signs of age - if it is to explain the actual evidence. You have not addressed these arguments. In other words the point you quote from Ned was addressed - and it was addressed back in post 2.
Nobody has implied that God is a liar. Rather it is pointed out that this is an implication of appearance of age, given that the evidence is such that there is no other reasonable explanation.
Let us also note - again - that your "analogies" all work only because the evidence in the analogy is weak and in every case any reasonable investigation would see through it. You have expressly claimed that those analogies reflect reality. Thus you are implicitly denying that the evidence of an old universe is strong. But you won/'t defend that claim - and if you oculd there would be no need for analogies. It seems then that you are using your "analogies" as a way of "smuggling in" assertions so you can avoid habing to actually argue for them. One more case where you have evaded honest discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by mike the wiz, posted 04-08-2004 8:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 11:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 145 (98896)
04-09-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Zachariah
04-08-2004 9:44 PM


God's age.
...then He created them in His image. He apparently would be, therefore, at the age he created Adam and Eve. Or in that range. That's my thought on it. What's your take?
So god is about 6,025 or so years old?? WHat a silly thing to say!
I understand the anthropomorphising of God to some degree but this is waaaay over the top.
Are you saying that a baby or child is not in God's image? An odd thing to suggest.
(re quotes see the informatin at the link on the left UBB Code is on -- you may also just attempt to Edit someone's post to see what they entered (but you can't change it ) )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Zachariah, posted 04-08-2004 9:44 PM Zachariah has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 125 of 145 (98903)
04-09-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
04-09-2004 3:54 AM


No mud slinging so he mud slings
It has been argued that "apprearance of age" DOES require unnecessary signs of age - if it is to explain the actual evidence. You have not addressed these arguments.
No Paul - what you describe is FALSE AOA.Listen, if you can't read properly that's not my fault. You've accused me of lying, going against forum rules etc, yet you continue to post boisterous babble in my direction, and blowing hot air.
I never argued against "FALSE appearance of age" and I haven't even mentioned the evidence because that is not what my dispute is. For the umpteenth time, I am fighting those who call God a liar in the faith and belief section. I honored the fact that you claimed moral victory in mistakenly believing you when you said you would not mud sling. Yet despite my avoidance of your provocative statements you still accuse me of all kinds, and appear to be mud slinging.
I invite you to quote where I have even had a dispute with FALSE appearance of age. IOW - I haven't argued against such things as I am not going to get into it. I have only mentioned appearance of age. You have realized your mistake and so cannot stop whining about it. If your moral victory meant anything you would have shut up long ago, instead of trying to accuse me.
It's no good saying I didn't address the argument = big deal. If I never adressed it it's because I'm not against evidence for an old universe. I see what you are trying to do, in turning your failure to see my argument - onto me. But I am afraid I never said I was a YEC, and so I am not obliged to argue evidence in the belief section.
You should have thought properly before adding "false", you've dug your own grave. That, together with mud slinging, means if this was at any time - your victory, you have give it to me.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 1:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 126 of 145 (98915)
04-09-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 11:58 AM


Re: No mud slinging so he mud slings
Mike, the strength of the evidence of age is PART OF MY ARGUMENT. The strength of the evidence of age is a *relevant part of YOUR ANALOGIES.
You cannot simply declare the evidence of age out of bounds if you want to assert that your analogies have any bearing on my argument.
Now you AREN'T on this thread to oppose anyone calling God a liar because there isn't anyone doing that here. The point of the thread is to discuss why it is said "appearance of age" implies that God is a liar.
Now there is no failure on my part - because you posted to oppose my argument - and YOU certainly thought you were doing so. Indeed you called my argument in post 2 "ridiculous" (see post 4) - while failing to address it. So clearly the mistake is yours. How am I supposed to know that you are opposing a figment of your imagination ?
Perhaps you would like to show the earliest post where you admitted that you had no objection to my actual arguments. If you want to claim that the error was mine you certainly can manage that. Or can it be that you never said such a thing, despite all the times I referred you back to my first post ? Or the other times I repeated my argument ?
In fact is it not the case that once when I explained my position for your benefit you called it a "trick" ?
It appears that if anyone has come to a sudden realisation of an error it is you.
And the fact is that I have explained and justified my insertion of "false". You have found nothing wrong in that justification.
So Mike, you are in no position to claim any "victory". By your own admission your objections to my argument rest on not even understanding the conclusion. So you cannot claim to have won the argument - nor can you claim to have won on moral grounds. The numerous misrepresentations and falsehoods you have posted give you no chance.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 11:58 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 1:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 127 of 145 (98918)
04-09-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by PaulK
04-09-2004 1:06 PM


Re: No mud slinging so he mud slings
Poppycock.
I infact have tried to show that AOA is certainly not a deception. You are now saying that false appearance of age is the same thing or is seemingly what YOU are now arguing from message 2. Irrelevant - I have only argued against AOA and when I said "ridiculous" I was referring to implications of AOA being a deception.
Now you AREN'T on this thread to oppose anyone calling God a liar because there isn't anyone doing that here. The point of the thread is to discuss why it is said "appearance of age" implies that God is a liar.
Appearance of age does not imply God is a liar - you imply it makes him a liar OR YOU have confused it with FALSE AOA.
And the fact is that I have explained and justified my insertion of "false". You have found nothing wrong in that justification.
Yes I have. I never mentioned false EVER. YOU SAY that AOA has to be false. I have given an example of AOA which is not false and is a reality in this life: A 30 year old who looks 45 years of age. If you have confused this with "false" then that is your own fault. YOU have implied AOA as deception not AOA itself. YOU have added "false" to AOA, again your fault. Frankly I am finished with this argument, it is going nowhere and I am satisfied within myself that I have victory. Certainly you have shown no understanding of logic in this topic if you can't even see the difference between a woman who dresses to look older and a young woman who looks older. A woman who is 30 and looks 45 IS TRULY AN EXAMPLE OF APPEARANCE OF AGE WITHOUT DECEPTION.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 1:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 1:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 129 by MrHambre, posted 04-09-2004 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 128 of 145 (98925)
04-09-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 1:25 PM


Re: No mud slinging so he mud slings
Mike if you are using "false appearance of age" as I have used it then you are not dealing with the "appearance of age" argument which specifically asserts that the Earth and the Universe appear to be older than they are.
Even if you are using your reading - which requires taking active steps to deceive - I have already argued that the evidence is such that the only way it can be accounted for through "appearance of age" is if there is such a deception. See post 2 for some examples, but there are others I have produced in this thread.
Moreover Mike if you had READ my justification you would have seen that I did indeed classify a 30 year old woman who appears to be 45 as an example of a "false apperarance of age". I explained precisely the distinction I was making - and it did not involve deception. Thus you have no grounds to accuse me of illogic since you - quite literally - do not know what you are talking about.
And can you make up your mind exactly what it is you are arguing against ? I have made it clear from the start that the inference from AoA to deception is based on the quality and nature of the available evidence. Is it that inference you are against ? Because that is what you called "ridiculous". But all your arguments assume that the evidence is of a lower quality - so if you REALLY oppose my argument you need to actually deal with the evidence -which you have failed to do

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 1:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 129 of 145 (98927)
04-09-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 1:25 PM


Only Her Hairdresser Knows For Sure...
Mike,
quote:
Certainly you have shown no understanding of logic in this topic if you can't even see the difference between a woman who dresses to look older and a young woman who looks older. A woman who is 30 and looks 45 IS TRULY AN EXAMPLE OF APPEARANCE OF AGE WITHOUT DECEPTION.
Here I tried to show why your analogy misses the point. There must be some evidence that we can present to support the hypothesis that the woman is 30, or that she's 45. She may say, she may even believe, that she's 30. However, that isn't as persuasive as birth certificates, census records, newspaper accounts, and other facts from independent sources.
You're saying she is 30, but by what criteria do you know this? Going back to the age-of-Earth topic, the 'appearance' of age is based on several independent but mutually corroborating scientific measures. The 'true' age, according to you, is based on the loose interpretation of folklore that is literally thousands of years old. This is why we're asking how you know that thirty is her true age. It seems more likely that if she looks forty-five and there's all these other reasons to believe she's forty-five, then her true age is forty-five.
regards,
Esteban "Disappearance of Age" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 1:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 130 of 145 (98935)
04-09-2004 2:53 PM


A woman who is 30 and appears to be 45 has a false appearance of age - she is younger than she falsely appears to be. This is an important distinction to make and I have consistently used "false apparance of age" in just this fashion
BUT, I do not see this as a false appearance of age, just an appearance of age. She looks 45 but it is not "false" in that, you said "she appears to be". I have now added "falsely" in yellow, to show you that the word "false" implies deception. It now sounds like she "falsely appears to be". Why didn't you add the word "falsely"? It's obvious - because then it would imply she is somehow "making" this appearance of age. You do not need the word false to be added to appearance of age. if you simply mean that the age itself is "false age" then that is another thing, because she is not really that age = 45.
It's either false age or appearance of age. false appearance of age means a false --> false age. like a wig and make-up. But then a wig and make up is itself just false age, so "false age" is more accurate when defining a wig and make up, rather than a 30 year old, hence AOA is more relevant to discussion, which is what we had in the first place.
If you use false age it will not accurately describe the woman. Appearnce of age seems more acceptable because it simply would mean the AOA is there because of nature or events, not for any false purposes. It may still qualify as "false age" but that is simply because she is not 45.
I intentionally intorduced the word "false" to MAKE the distinction between a thing which appears to be old and is in fact old
But there is already a distinction between a thing which appears to be old and is old. appears is the difference. We already know what we are talking about when we say AOA. Isn't "false age" more apropriate? The wording doesn't make sense to me, false is not required unless there is a false AOA - like a wig and make-up. Are you saying there is no difference between the woman who is genuinly 30 and looks 45, and a woman who is 30 and puts a wig and make-up on?
False age is also someone who is 30 and looks 45, yet it is not a false false age, it is a genuine false age, like wrinkle etc. It is not necessary in this instance to call it a false appearance of age or a false,false age.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-09-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:10 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 145 (98939)
04-09-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 2:53 PM


No, saying something "appears" to be old or red or whatever does not imply that it is NOT as it appears. In normal speech it is often used to imply uncertainty, with the idea that the thing in question might or might not be as it appears to the speaker.
Thus we do need to distinguish cases where the appearance is ONLY an appearance - as the YEC "appearance of age" position claims is the case for the Earth and the Universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 2:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 3:20 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 134 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 3:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 132 of 145 (98941)
04-09-2004 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
04-09-2004 3:10 PM


No, saying something "appears" to be old or red or whatever does not imply that it is NOT as it appears. In normal speech it is often used to imply uncertainty, with the idea that the thing in question might or might not be as it appears to the speaker.
But isn't that also the best word for this issue? When you included "false" - late in the debate, why wasn't AOA enough?
If that the ONLY reason you use false---> is as an addage, because "appears" isn't enough to define it, then I can understand what you are saying. Confusion arises though when there is a difference, for example:
The 30 year old with the wig and make-up, what would you call that? A false, false appearance of age?
I think I can see your point and I understand your position in making it clear that it isn't actual age. Maybe AOA is in itself not an entirely useful statement. But what would you use to show the difference between the 30 year old woman, and the 30 year old lying woman, with the wig?
The problem of this debate may well be in communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 137 by NosyNed, posted 04-09-2004 3:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 145 (98942)
04-09-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 2:53 PM


"False" often simply means untrue - it need not imply intentional deception. (Indeed even if you said her appearance was "deceptive" it would not imply intent). So if you like yes, your woman falsely appears to be 45 because she is only 30.
Appearance does not imply falsehood even in the sense of "not true". Indeed I have already said that the universe appears to be old because it IS old. If your assertion that an object cannot be as it appears to be were true that would make no sense.
dictionary.com definitions
appear ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pr)
intr.v. appeared, appearing, appears
1.To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky.
2.To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically.
3.To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.
4.To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.
5.To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news.
6.Law. To present oneself formally before a court as defendant, plaintiff, or counsel.
seem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seeming, seems
1.To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2.To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3.To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for
several years.
4.To appear to exist: There seems no reason to postpone it.
false ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fls)
adj. falser, falsest
1.Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery.
2.Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath.
3.Arising from mistaken ideas: false hopes of writing a successful novel.
4.Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises.
5.Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless.
6.Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents.
7.Erected temporarily, as for support during construction.
8.Resembling but not accurately or properly designated as such: a false thaw in January; the false dawn peculiar to the tropics.
9.Music. Of incorrect pitch.
10.Unwise; imprudent: Don't make a false move or I'll shoot.
11.Computer Science. Indicating one of two possible values taken by a variable in Boolean logic or a binary device.
So if something appeared to be other than it was then the appearance would be "contrary to fact" and therefore false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 2:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 134 of 145 (98943)
04-09-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
04-09-2004 3:10 PM


Thus we do need to distinguish cases where the appearance is ONLY an appearance - as the YEC "appearance of age" position claims is the case for the Earth and the Universe.
Would Adam qualify in your opinion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2004 3:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 135 of 145 (98944)
04-09-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by mike the wiz
04-09-2004 3:20 PM


A woman wearing wig and makeup to make herself appear older still displays a false appearance of age. The difference is that it is intentionally false. Maybe an "intentional false appearance of age" if we wish to make that distinction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by mike the wiz, posted 04-09-2004 3:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024