God - a liar?

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.

Again you aren't dealing with the points raised. Not even the points you bother to quote.The fact is that the universe tells us that it IS old. There is no other reasonable qway to understand it.If the "apparent age" claim is true then all this is a massive deception engineered by God. THAT is what is meant when it is said that the apparent age argument makes God a liar.What you call a "strawman" is the view that intentional deception is intentional deception. I say this because you offer no reasonable response to the arguments that the "apparent age" argument requires intentional deception.

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]

I never said that anyone was forced into the "apparent age" position. And I certainly never said that it was MY position. MY position is that the universe really IS old.My position is that explaining away the evidence of age as "apparent age" requires a deliberate deception on God's part.You have offered no alternative to this. All you do is to try to blame the victims of the deceit for being deceived. Indeed you call a simple trust that nature is NOT a massive deception "trickery" !Perhaps it all boils down to a worship of lies. You believe that God is a liar - but you lie about it. It makes more sense of what you are saying than the idea that you are honestly trying to discuss the matter. If you wanted to do that then you would deal with the actual issues instead of trying to blame the innocent.

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]

So basically what you are saying is that it is "nonsense" to prefer views based reason over those based on your personal prejudices.That is what it comnes down to. You don't address my reaoning at all. You don't offer any reasonable alternative. You just make up lame excuses.The simple fact is that huge amounts of self-consistent evidence says that the Universe and the Earth are old. The "apparent age" argument says that the Universe and the Earth are young and only appear old because God created them that way. I point out that the only plausible reason for this is a deliberate deception by God.Therefore I say that the apparent age argument says that God is a liar.You don't answer that argument at all except with "blame the victim" rhetoric. Yet if we beleive your rhetoric you cannot trust ANYTHING you see. Believing the evidence of your senses is just a "trick" to catch God in a lie. I don't thinbk even you REALLY beleive your own argument. I think it is just an excuse that you aren't even thinking about - and we know THAT because you don't even TRY to apply it to the evidence that I actually mentioned !

Mike you still do not address the evidence. Unless and until you can offer a reasonable explanation OTHER THAN deliberate deceit then you have no case. And you want to leave this thread before even trying.Let's have an analogy that REALLY deals with your "argument".If someone knowingly hands over a forged banknote as payment but does not SAY that it is genuine then according to you they are not guilty of any deception. If somebody accepts that note then THEY are guilty of "trickery".According to you deceivers are innocent of deceit. The people they decieve are using "trickery" - THEY are guilty.And that is all your "argument" amounts to. Blame the victims to "exonerate" the guilty party.It doesn't work Mike. It isn't even honest.

Thanks all for the comments. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back into this thread that I started. I do have some more things of my own to bring up regarding this, but I don't have the time right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

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]

No, I am not misrepresenting your position. Your posiiton is that that the "apparent age" is not a deception. Yet you do nothing to show that there is anything wrong with my argument that "apparent age" REQUIRES an intentional deception. Instead you accuse those who have been decieved of "tricks".My analogy accurately represented your defence of the "apparent age" argument. Since the blank note does not have an "appearance of being genuine" your rewrite is the misrepresentation. Nor does anyone mistaking the value of the note. THe WHOLE POINT of "appearance of age" is that the evidence DOES support an old age - and as I have pointed out the evidence is very strong.So your argument NOW is "if the evidence wasn't very good at all then apparent age wouldn't make God a liar. Therefore apparent age God doesn't make a liar even though the evidence IS very strong".That's just illogical.

Mike you know full well that the conclusion of science is that the Universe and the Earth are old. This conclusion has lasted a long time and is supported by overwhelming evidence.SO if the universe is young there IS a real deception. And in my first post I argue that this has to be intentional - and those arguments you have not addressed.Now, Mike are you prpeared to START to discuss this honestly ?

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]

quote:

---

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?

---

Under that analogy, letting someone believe the lie is the same as lying.Unfortunately, your analogy does not fit. The universe could not have the appearance of such age without an intentional deceit. Everything we see is evidence of the extreme age of the Earth, but scuffing and mud on a football doesn't really make the football look older. It may look used, dirty, and certainly not new, but not old.You know what does make things look older? Age. Things can be made to look older, but nothing looks much older than it actually is without being caused to look that way.