Omphalos and YEC are two distinct entities, the former may be part of the latter but not by necessity. '...that may be perfectly logical' is what I said in reference to Omphalos, not in reference to YEC.
Heh? So you are saying that I was proposing the category Omphalos, or ? ... but no, I'll drop it at that as non-productive.
What you are proposing definitely is opmphalos, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.
You can call it what you want Fijian. Nothing follows from what you call it. You have not yet engaged me.
What if I'm an illusion? You are interacting with all these posts on an internet forum but perhaps there is no 'theFijian' ( maybe that's preferrable), perhaps there is no ChristianForums.com?
OK, right here, I can illustrate what is wrong with how you are dealing with me. Atheists use exactly the same method to ridicule our God. First I will describe the method, and then I will illustrate it.
The method is to categorize a concept under a general category and then ridicule something else that falls under the same category, something which is inherently ridiculous which is supposed to somehow make everything in the category ridiculous.
The category used by atheists is "entity with supernatural powers". In the context of Christianity they ridicule the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny. This is supposed to somehow make our God ridiculous, but, of course, that it does is fallacy. I have seen this done often enough to be sure that it is commonly done.
I am not proposing that you could be an illusion. I am not proposing that there might not be 'theFijian'. (I am not even proposing that 'theFijian' is nothing more than a computer program.) That these ideas would be foolish is not relevant to the scheme I have suggested.
You have illustrated that "Omphalos" includes some ridiculous ideas. It does not follow that everything you wish to categorize "Omphalos" is ridiculous.
How daft would you feel if that were true?
Daft indeed, but I am not worried.
YEC 'could' be true but only if evolution (amongst many other scientific fields) was bad science, hence Omphalos.
No. As I have repeatedly said, evolution is good science, the best science, correct science. Is God supposed to be a testable hypothesis? No, not according to the bible (we can only know God through faith), and not according to logic (since the only part of God that is not nature is supernature, and supernature is beyond the realm of science). In the scheme which I outlined, science is and does everything we can ask of it, whether the scheme is true or false. The scheme I am talking about would be a supernatural arrangement of things, and as such, it would not be detectable by science. Science is about testable hypotheses. Two schemes, evolution from the big bang, and sophisticated YEC would have no testable difference. That makes evolution the correct scientific hypothesis by Occam's razor, which is as far as science can go.
There are atheistic, untestable, metaphysical theories of reality as well. Hugh Everetts "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is an example. In this scheme, wherever there is a "wave function collapse" the universe splits into multiple universes, so that there is a new universe for each possible collapse. This would mean that the universe splits into a virtually uncountable number of universes for every single thing that happens. It is a way of avoiding the supernatural implications of the Copenhagen interpretation. These innumerable universes are as indetectable as God, so the theory, which helps these people come to grips with the indeterminacy of the universe as we now understand it, adds not one whit of predictability to what we can observe. Serious, important physicists, such as John Wheeler, chose to believe it. Others do not. It is metaphysical. Few physicists would disagree with that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0