Ok, in that case, please keep reading. My final paragraph begins with "even without answering this", even without knowing about the presence or no of past memories (that would be fake), I tried to answer.
Upvote
0
As written, no your scenario shows no apparent deception.I speak this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08 with a note in his pocket saying I spoke this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08.
Show this to be an act of deception, and show the intent to deceive, without being wrong.
What on earth does this mean?Even without answering this, a certain intention to deceive can be understood...
Okay, guys, no offense --- I stopped right here. I'll just do you all a favor and ask for this thread to be shut down.As written, no your scenario shows no apparent deception...
HmmmOkay, guys, no offense --- I stopped right here. I'll just do you all a favor and ask for this thread to be shut down.
Thanks for --- well --- thanks for trying.
I said show deception* or kindly keep your comments to yourself --- period.... I don't perceive any deception.
OP said:Show this to be an act of deception, and show the intent to deceive, without being wrong.
Oh, Okay, sorryI said show deception* or kindly keep your comments to yourself --- period.
*
I speak this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08 with a note in his pocket saying I spoke this man into existence ex nihilo on 11 Jul 08.
Show this to be an act of deception, and show the intent to deceive, without being wrong.
I wish they would --- although they have a right to comment. But their comments don't even address the OP.Oh, Okay, sorry
People who actually see no deception in your OP should simply keep their comments off this thread, right?
Absolutely.This thread is only for people who somehow see deception in your OP.
Show this to be an act of deception, and show the intent to deceive, without being wrong.
No, I haven't.Before you get cranky, have you considered the possibility that your "challenge" questions aren't as clear as you want them to be?
Actually, I go by faith in science that this earth is as old as they say it is. I'll gladly acquiesce though if shown otherwise.This is of course, you think the world looks millions of years old to begin with, right?
I can't answer this without adding to your challenge, so I suspect you will just dismiss my answer.
Anyway.
If you create this man with no memories, and a body that showed no evidence of disease, or accident, so their was no history to it, then there is no deception and no intent to decieve that I can see.
If you create this man with 60 years of memories, an apendictomy scar, a trick need and the memories of the account that caused it etc, then I would say you are being deceptive, certainly to that man. You have made him believe he is 60 years old, and given him evidence he cannot refuse. He is either 60 years old or he is 1 minute old with 60 years of fake history.
Now, I assume this is in relation to the embedded age of the earth idea. If you tell me you created the man as per senario 1, I would agree that you personally are not being deceptive. However, I will agree that this is analogous to the earth. The earth is (if it was created ex-nihilo 6100 years ago) was created as per senario 2.
No, I haven't.
Since you guys are such "experts" on showing God to be a deceiver, and my Embedded Age explanation to be wrong, I thought this little challenge would be a snap for you to answer.
Apparently you guys aren't half the "experts" you think you are.
Anyone can simply say my Embedded Age is wrong because that would make God a deceiver; but proving it is something else though --- isn't it?
Actually, I go by faith in science that this earth is as old as they say it is. I'll gladly acquiesce though if shown otherwise.