God - a liar?

Hi everyone. I’m new here to the forum. Been looking around for a bit recently, and thought it was time to get in on the action. I must say, the level of knowledge in this forum is very commendable — much higher than my own, but hopefully I’ll be able to bring something to the table that will make some of you think.I’ve seen it posted more than a few times (though I’ve not seen a complete thread dedicated to the idea — if I’m wrong and there is a thread to this effect, please point me to it, and accept my apologies) that something like apparent age, for example, would mean that God is a liar. I’m curious as to how this follows. It seems to me that there could be some very reasonable explanations, but everyone seems to fall back on (pardon the paraphrase) Well, I don’t know or I can’t understand it, so God must be lying. This is not a good argument. How can you start an argument with the phrase why would God, not receive any proof as to why He would, not give any valid reasons (on the basis of what is contextually said in the Bible, not on what you think) as to why He wouldn’t, and then conclude that He is a liar? Similarly, is God a liar simply because we don’t always understand how He works?

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 I think is that evos prefer to consider only "facts" that will lead them to the conclusion that they want to believe. They don't care that it doesn't agree with what is stated in the eternal Word of God. After all, it must be true because it leads to the "right" conclusion.I have an analogy of my own for consideration:
Suppose this guy with the note goes into the bank with a $10 note (sorry, I'm American - no pounds on this side of the pond!). But at the bank he goes into, six tellers speak and read only Spanish while only two understand English. The Spanish tellers obviously cannot accept the note because they can't understand it, even though it is perfectly valid. But the English-speaking tellers can accept it. In this case, there is no deception by anyone. The difference is in how the note is received and understood.The problem with your analogy, Paul, is your initial assumption. Anyone can prove that God is a liar if they start with the assumption that God is a liar. Of course, then, the problem with my analogy is that I assume God is not a liar, so we are both in the same boat. The issue that must be addressed is what we believe about God. I believe He is not a liar based on what I have read in the Bible, which I believe to be the inerrant, infallable Word of God. You believe (forgive me for putting words in your mouth) He is a liar based on what you have seen in science, which you apparently believe to be infallable, or at least when it is fallible, the solution always supports the evolutionists.How, then, do we go about trying to prove each other wrong? You give example after example of either things in nature that seem to contradict the Bible or things in the Bible that seemingly contradict themselves - all of which are valid questions that can and should be answered. I give example after example of how the Bible confirms what we see in nature and how those contradictions you see in the Bible are perfectly explainable. And we go back and forth, neither of us wanting to give in to the other's viewpoint, regardless of any "evidence" that either side may have.I would love nothing more than to give you some evidence that God is right. Right now you're saying, "Good, then answer the points I raised in my first post." Even if I did, would you believe it? I don't think so. My answer to your first post would be that God created the universe exactly how he wanted it, and if there were no sin in the world, we would all view the same scientific evidence and come to the same conclusion that God created it that way. But there is sin, and there is Satan who is the ruler of this world, and he convinces men of lies, evolution being one of them, so that they will not come to Jesus. And God allows these lies to continue, so that in the end He will be glorified. How can God be glorified by a lie, you ask? The Bible is quite clear that man must be saved by faith alone not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). If mankind were able to prove scientifically that God exists and that creation is as He says it is, what faith is that? None. I submit to you that this would be a work that man would try to justify himself with — Look how we have proved that God exists and that the Bible is right. And that is not glorifying to God. What is glorifying to God is faith. The scientific proof will then follow that faith. Good science will in the end prove the Bible is correct, but that science must first be grounded in Christ-honoring faith.So, ultimately, I will never have the answers that you are looking for. That is not to say I won't have answers, just not the ones you want to hear. The only one that will give you the answers you really need is the Holy Spirit. And the only place to find those answers is in the Bible - and might I suggest the book of John.

I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, really, so I don't have the answers to the points you raised in your first post. I am sure they have been addressed by plenty of people, and there are explanations that can fit into the creation model, but again I would have to ask, if they are presented, will you believe them? No, you'll probably find some way of discounting them so you don't have to give up your views. I agree with you that not addressing your specific examples is not the way to debate, and I will try to get together some evidence to show the other side of the argument and present that in a later post. If you'll recall, I did point out that my analogy was just as flawed as yours, and yet you also continue to use yours even after I've shown you how it is invalid. We are both beginning by making an assumption that we are trying to prove. You assume God is a liar and use evidence to prove it. I assume God is not a liar and use evidence to prove it. What you mean is "they do not reflect the evidence that we accept since it proves evolution is true." There is other evidence out there, Paul, but evos tend to simply toss it out since it doesn't go along with what they think. Again, I will get some together and put it out here in a later post.

This is a misconception. God cannot just do what ever He wants. God is bound by His holiness and by what is written in His Word so that He can only do that which is right. ...which is why He's given us His Word so that we can read it and understand Him better. Not sure what you mean here. Kind of a nebulous statement. God did create everything that exists, however, the point you seem to be going after is that because of this everything is god. This is not true. Everything was created to glorify God, but in now way does this mean that everything IS god.

The issue of this thread is not the age of the earth, per se. It is whether or not God is a liar because of how we interpret scientific evidence. So the lack of posting on the dates and dating forums means that creation must be wrong? I know that's not what you mean, but that is how it come off. I will need to spend some more time in that forum to see what is and is not being answered, but I warn you.... I am no scientist, so much of what I say will probably be, as you say, "cut and pasted from various creationist sources." I have a feeling though that all of what I say will be discounted for that reason alone, not based on what it actually says. Which leads again into my question that no one seems to want to answer: If evidence is given for a younger earth, would any of you believe it?

My apologies. Although I said it, I did not mean necessarily that you assume God is a liar. The reason I said that is because in your analogy you start out with someone trying to cash a forged note. To me, that certainly seems like starting with an assumption. I understand how you can take what you see an evidence and use that to come up with a concept of a lying God. Understand, however, that I take that same evidence, couple it with the Bible, and come up with a different viewpoint. This is a fair statement. As I said before, Satan has caused many to believe a lie. I'm sure that there are more out there believing a lie than the truth, so yes, I guess I would say that most scientists are ruled by the bias of that lie. And please don't take this as any kind of a personal attack - that is certainly not my point. I only seek to convince some of the truth of the Bible.

This doesn't make sense. God must be limited somehow, otherwise He exists as a complete contradictory paradox. I can't say God is not evil, and then in the same breath say that He must be evil because of His omnipotence. This is just impossible. The fact is, that according to the Bible, God's nature is that of complete holiness, therefore it permeates everything He does and He must be governed by it. To say that God must be something that He is not or do something that He cannot do because of omnipotence is contradictory nonsense. God simply cannot do things that are against the nature of Him being God, and to ask Him to do it is illogical and contradictory, and therefore cannot be used to prove that He is not omnipotent.

How does that make any sense whatsoever? Since you don't understand anything about God, then the only way for Him to exist is if He doesn't exist? I don't understand anything about to perform a brain surgery. Does that mean then that I should conclude it doesn't exist? No, that's what the Bible is for.

Proof, please? It's one thing to make this statement as blindly as you apparently are. Quite another to back it up. Give me some kind of proof so we can have a reasonalbe debate.

So, by your logic, my English textbooks from college are all completely wrong and were written by a bunch of people who have no idea what they were talking about? Of course, not. What an absurd idea! My English books speak nothing of science because they are not science books. Similarly, the Bible is not a science book, so it should not be discounted just because it doesn't speak to every facet of science there is. I don't even know of any science books that cover the wide variety of topics you apparently want to see in the Bible to validate it.