Free will, perfection and limits on god

A couple of things for you to think about.1) The numbers:
If you appear to be 40 years old should I believe that your age is about 40 years - or 70 seconds ?
This is the magnitude of difference we are talking about.2) Evidence of events:
If, on a medical examination finds that you have had your appendix removed - it is absent and the expected scars from the operation are present - should we conclude that you have had your appendix surgically removed ? Or should we instead conclude that it is simply an appearance ? How would we explain that appearance ?

Well obviously solipsism can't be logically disproved. But for the average creationist it isn't an option to say that our senses deceive us any more than it is to say that the universe deceives us. They beleive that both are God's work, and that God does not deceive.

Whether you subscribe to solipsism or not your arguments tend in that direction. After all it is only our senses that tell us that there is anything else. And since you are targetting the age of the Earth in particular it is worth pointing out that your arguments are unacceptable to many who believe in a young Earth regardless of your personal beliefs.

Fundamentally speaking if our senses do not show us things as they "are" in some sense (and I suggest that you consider how this point relates to Instrumentalism before dismissing it) then they are an illusion. Solipsism is simply the direction your argument is heading towards, even if it does not reach there.As for the age of the Earth the only significant group of people interested in arguing for ayoung Earth are Young Earth Creationists. Hence it is surely relevant that even most of them would have objectiond to your argument.

On the subject of our senses I suggested that you should consider HOW the idea that our senses reveals things as they "are" in some sense related to instumentalism. I don't think you've really thought it through. Consider what it means to be "green" for instance. Is there any undetectable systematic error in our senses that would mean that we would be wrong to label some set of "green" objects as being "green" ? From the considerations above I would say no.And if you can't understand why pointing out that YECs would not want to use an argument that might otherwise be helpful to them is relevant on a evolution versus creation board then I really think you need to consider that issue, too.

"Green" does indeed address something thought to be in the real world - it represents photons with a particular range of energies. It is not a simple abstract quality.So what concepts from the empirical world are not reducible to examples like "green" that cannot reasonably be "wrong" in the fashion you suggest. How about spatial aspects like size and distance ?As for the other point, I think I have explained myself often enough. Here's a hint - it ISN'T just about what you care about because this is a PUBLIC FORUM.

Obviously you are not understanding the point.One more try. Our descriptions of the world are not independant of our senses. Often they are DERIVED from our senses. The undetectable systematic errors are impossible because they would require the sensoory data to be other than it is. If we sensed "green" from elephants then "green" wuld refer to "elephants". As simple as that.As for the rest of yur post, if you don;t understand why I would relate your poitns to the primary topic of the forum for the benefit of others reading the messages then there is nothing more to say.

quote:

---

How do you know that these errors are not occuring now?

---

How do I know that something that can't happen, isn't happening ? If it isn't obvious to you then try thinking again.

I've already explained why.

Message 166 has the explanation you are looking for.

The problem with your message 176 is that it is badly confused and doesn't really address the points I am making.I really don't see how I can explain it any better.

Well I suppose one more try might do it.Consider this, if humans were differnet so that the sensation associated with "red" was swapped with that we actually associate with "green" could that be considered an error ?

Well it seems we are making progress.My point is that this point can be extended to other sensory data - our perception of distance, for instance. To the point where any systematic and undetectable variationin what our senses reported cannot be considered an error for exactly the same reason the "green"/"red" swap cannot be considered an error.

One thing DID change in the green/red swap - the sensory data we received. But BECAUSE the change was systematic our sensory data is still consistent and it cannot be called an error. My contention is that any change to our sensory data that is completely systematic is undetectable - but cannot be an error for the same reason that the red/green swap is not an error.

No. The swap is that everyone has (and always had) the sensory experience (the "quale") we associate with "red" when they see something we would call "green" and vice versa.