Now, I do agree that it's a harsh to call God "deceptive" if the universe has a different age from what it might appear to be. You are right that age labels are things that
we stick on the universe, not things the universe comes with. In that one sense, you are correct to say:
And last I checked the universe didn't have any of these things either. No receipts with dates on them. No layers saying, hi I added a layer every year, so count my layers to calculate the age of the earth!
But the point philadiddle is making shouldn't be taken too literally (heh). The way I see it, the point is that there didn't seem to be any
unnecessary markers of age on the wine.
The purpose of the wine appearing to be chemically old was so that it would taste good. This purpose is not helped or hindered by, say, the butler remembering that he bought the wine at such and such a date. And given that there seems to be no good reason for the butler to be given such a memory (unless it had actually happened), we would be surprised if we found that the butler did indeed remember buying the wine. If you're honest you would admit that it would at least reduce the credibility of the miracle a little, especially if you began from a point of view wherein it is more likely that a miracle didn't occur.
Now some markers of age are certainly necessary should God decide to create the universe fully formed,
ex nihilo. I discussed with lucaspa one example: since scientists believe that carbon was created by supernova processes, the very presence of carbon on Earth indicates that the universe is at least old enough for supernovae to have occurred and for their contents to have been spread across the galaxy. Surely it would be unfair for us to use that as a marker of age: how
else would God have created life if not with carbon? The "created recently and fully functioning" hypothesis predicts the presence of carbon at least as well as the "old enough for supernovae" hypothesis.
But there are other evidences for age which the "created recently and fully functioning" hypothesis simply cannot account for. My favorite example is the isotopic ratios of lunar and meteoritic rocks. Lunar and meteoric rocks have certain ratios of isotopes of identical elements which indicate a particular age for them. Were they created as part of a fully functioning universe? Probably not, for the following reasons: firstly, the isotopes are not only inert in terms of nuclear reactions, they also have identical chemistry - only a fairly artificial mass spectrometer test can separate them. God could have scrambled the isotopic ratios of all our rocks and life would (quite literally) go on just fine. Secondly, not only are these isotopic ratios functionally irrelevant, they are found in moon and meteor rocks! Who cares what those rocks are made out of? Surely their composition can't greatly affect the initiation and preservation of life on Earth.
If you are honest with yourself, the moment I said "isotopic ratios of rocks possibly indicate a particular age for them", you were probably thinking "God must have had a purpose for them". And can't that be said of any possible age indicator? No matter how coherent or accurate it is, and no matter how irrelevant it is to the functioning of life, you could still say "but
maybe it really does have a functional purpose! You just don't know it yet".
And so your position, while it is logically coherent, turns out to be untestable.
