God - a liar?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

Paul, I have just said that exact thing: 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?

oh, I thought you meant this topic, never mind. I didn't think anyone would bother reading that silly little topic I made. 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.

Good point.Furthermore I took a quote from one of paulk's links, but in it's entirety. 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

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. 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. Fair enough. Although you have implied a few things here; massive deception, false and forged noteThese 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.

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; - Which is significant because it is a question. 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]

Infact, No, not surprisingly - that is not what I am implying. All I am saying is that maybe you didn't notice the almost and how significant it was. Yes - the person points to a possible deception, but I wanted to show you the importance of the wording - that's all. Why you think this gives you victory I don't know. Maybe you are frustrated because you can't refute me and I deciphered your one-sided ilogic quite easily. I'd like you to show us how you think you are victorious, certainly you couldn't trick me into assuming a position I was infact not taking, like you intended to. And any attempts were soon put to bed. Infact, even when I tried to fix your illogical statement as to the position you were implying I was taking, in order to get it a tiny bit closer to the truth, you tried to put words in my mouth AGAIN, adding "false" and assuming I'd adjusted it to make it fit my position.All this can be clearly seen by any reader who goes through the thread.

A moral victory? That's okay - I think I understand. If you think I was too harsh over the quote thing then ok - sorry. It seems you are the moral giant and I am on lower ground. I apologize for the quote - you did provide enough and my tongue was too quick. It seems your righteousness has outdone mine - What then can I do? If my righteousness does not exceed yours. Sorry Paul.If I never supported my own analogies it is because I thought we agreed early on that they proove nothing. If you want to meet the moral standard you have set for yourself, I would suggest you be honest - and admitt my analogies were far more logical - with the shown substitutions. Certainly I have shown the logic to my arguments in this topic, and shown the one-sidedness in your own, and sadly you have chose to ignore that.

But you represented someone elses position by saying that they believe in a "massive deception". And you couldn't explain why the note had to be forged, ALSO I shown that if you remove the payment the analogy is obsolete. If that is not correct SHOW US WHAT THE PAYMENT STANDS FOR. Logic is not connected with ones opinion, therefore - a neutral position of the real situation applies. You said that people who believed in a "massive deception". I have succesfully shown how that is infact not the position of those who believe in appearance of age. Unfortunately, you have conluded that I am a YEC despite my attempts to show you how my logic is very relevant if you are going to mis-represent believers in appearance of age.Also, you have confused false appearance of age with appearance of age. false appearance of age:A woman who is thirty years of age and looks thirty years of age, puts on a wig and make up in order to look forty five years of age. appearance of age:A woman who is thirty years of age and looks forty five years of age.I NEVER IMPLIED THE FORMER in this debate. I have only mentioned the latter. Therefore, they are not the same thing. Either you didn't think clearly or you indeed did know this difference, however - I am indifferent as I have now shown the logical difference. You didn't add false to my statement, you added it to your statement which I revised to try and make it a bit more accurate if it was made to imply my position - which it was. Furthermore, I have completely denied that your statement is my position - vehemently.I have never used false appearance of age. Read post 29, concerning this. I sucessfullly shown how "massive deception" is infact ONLY appearance of age to the believer in appearance of age. Your analogy is only relevant to one-sidedness and assumes a "payment" and is therefore NOT logical. My analogy assumes nothing as I even tried to help by saying the blank note can "appear to be a 20" - which fully concurs with appearance of age. Your analogy has been proved as illogical because of assumptions of opinionated speculation - at best. And now you are saying "as long as it represents my position" - fine, as long as you realize that "payment" and "forged note" are irrelevant because of this. Again. more mis-representations of my position concluded with assumptions of illogical mediocre thought.My analogies cannot represent the real situation, only one possible scenario in which appearance of age NOT "false", is involved.The fact is this topic deals with God and if he is a liar. My analogies HAVE SUCCESFULLY shown that there is a possibility that AOA is JUST that - AOA.THE END[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]

I understand what you are saying but my only point is to show the difference between AOA and false AOA. >>She IS 30<< - that's my point. Ofcourse, what your analogy does is to make an example of a false AOA, it effectively changes my original analogy into an example of possible falseness. But what if she doesn't have birth certificates? What if she is a hill billy who doesn't want to tell us her age. The universe doesn't come with birth certificate or "dating method". We are making her birth certificate for her.Adam would look about 30 but he would be one day old, in the same way a woman of thirty might look 40. My point is that these are not deceptions. These are just side-effects of life. She could well have had a lot of events in her lifetime,- a lot of (catastrophism) that makes her look older.Dating methods? - Well, does the universe come with dating methods? We must atleast be making the possible deception. If God made the dating method then I would agree, but it is humans who date things - God has not given a specific age. Nor did he give the universe a birth certificate.Do realize Sir, my defence is of God, in the faith and belief section. I don't intend to deny/confirm evidence in science, like Paul would have me do.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-08-2004]