Hypothetical for Scientists

[Split Rock]

Oh, come on. You know better than this. This is weaker than most of what AV posts.

Most of my arguments do not work on AVET... I know, I have tried them repeatedly. That is why I have tried a different tact. Sorry if you think it is "weak."

 

[Tiberius]

CHAPTER ONE​

You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.​

This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.​

Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.​

CHAPTER TWO​

Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.​

CHAPTER THREE​

Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:​

YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.​

QUESTION​

Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?​

I see what you are saying, but there are two problems.

Problem 1: This question depends on the existence of something which has not been proven. it is merely assuming that God created the Dalite in such a way as to be able to explain away evidence that goes against the existence of God, thus letting you continue believing in God. it is circular logic.

Problem 2: We are face with the situation where God has deliberately made the Dalite appear to be older than it actually is. The comparison was made with weathering furniture to make it appear to be older than it actually is. However, in this case, the closest analogy is weathering new furniture to make it appear to be old, and then claiming that it actually IS as old as it appears. This is deceit, and any God that creates Dalites in the way you described is thus a deceitful God.

 

[Cirbryn]

I see what you are saying, but there are two problems.

Problem 1: This question depends on the existence of something which has not been proven. it is merely assuming that God created the Dalite in such a way as to be able to explain away evidence that goes against the existence of God, thus letting you continue believing in God. it is circular logic.

Problem 2: We are face with the situation where God has deliberately made the Dalite appear to be older than it actually is. The comparison was made with weathering furniture to make it appear to be older than it actually is. However, in this case, the closest analogy is weathering new furniture to make it appear to be old, and then claiming that it actually IS as old as it appears. This is deceit, and any God that creates Dalites in the way you described is thus a deceitful God.

Problem 3: AV seems to be assuming that something can be created without also having been formed. If it wasn't ever formed I'd think it would have to be formless. If it's formless, I couldn't hold it in my hand.

 

[Tiberius]

I was being kind, Cirbryn. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that if a god existed, then a thing could either come into being naturally (what Av would call formed) or come into being via direct intervention by the hand of God (what he would call created). of course, this gives us no information about how we'd be able to tell the difference....

 

[FishFace]

Yes, it does. Omnipotence says that a being can do anything and everything. Once you find a logical contradiction, omnipotence goes out the window.

No it doesn't because the question contains a logical contradiction - it's as barmy as asking, "what's the difference between God?" Nothing can do something it cannot do, unless it is operating outside of human logic.
That is a claim that some theists make, of course. To be honest, I don't really care, although I wouldn't be too comfortable with saying that God operates outside human logic, since you cease being able to understand things about him or make sensible claims about him. If you're mathematically inclined, it's like generalising equations and formulae into the complex numbers. If God operates according to logic - if we're dealing with real numbers, then our simple, normal statements (formulae) are fine and work properly.
If we say God is outside logic, or if we throw i in there, then we can't.

But, either way the theist doesn't have anything to worry about, since the question is still nonsense. If you are comfortable applying nonsensical statements to God, you go down that road, if you aren't, you say that the statement is nonsense; there is no answer.

HOWEVER, that just leads you to the next question: how powerful does a being have to be in order to qualify as God? Does a being have to be "omnipotent" to be God?

I say "no". A being has to have certain powers, but does not have to be omnipotent.

What you describe is not what many people would call God. One might ask whether such a being is worth worshipping, although at least it would explain why he made such a hash of things.

Part of the problem is that the "answers" do not answer the question. Yours here, for instance, is simply a duck. You say the question is "doesn't make sense".

You can you do something you cannot do? If not, why not?

You are using circular reasoning: God is omnipotent so any questions that indicate that God can't be omnipotent don't make sense because God is omnipotent.

That's sort of the reasoning, but it's not circular. A clearer explanation is that any contradictory property cannot be part of omnipotence, otherwise omnipotence is not a property at all. It's a question of the definition of omnipotence, not whether something has it. We could state it formally thus:

P1. God is omnipotent.
P2. cannot do something he cannot do
C1. Therefore do be omnipotent, you need be able to do something you cannot do.

There argument is not circular, but it is based on the premise that God is omnipotent.

 

[FishFace]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

Bing bing bing!

Assumption: the Bible is reliable.
Conclusion: the Bible is more reliable than nature.


Evidence for the assumption is welcome. Evidence, please, not dodgy maths (and equally dodgy epistemology)

 

[FishFace]

No it doesn't --- once again, He would not have put what He did in writing, if He was planning to deceive us.

Let me guess, you know he wouldn't do that because he told you in writing? Except he can't have, because he didn't write anything! Stop equating "people who wrote the Bible" with God - they're different things!

 

[FishFace]

BUT, if indeed God did create the Dalite, all your assumptions are wrong.

There are no assumptions, there are only null hypotheses, which are subtly different. Anyway, this is the thing - if the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote the Bible to confuse and make fun of you, then all your assumption (/conclusions/null hypotheses) would be wrong.

Fact is, if any of an infinity of silly hypothetical situations were the case, we would all be up the creek without a paddle in terms of knowledge. That doesn't devalue our knowledge at all.

Notice that in my hypo, the Dalite that you're holding is not the Dalite that was created; and you would be drawing a wrong conclusion.

I'm confused - I thought Chris was claiming the dalite was created, otherwise it would be indicative of an ancient earth.

Note: I could have made my hypothetical a lot tougher. I could have simply started it out with:

• In the beginning, God creates Dalite...

Why that would be tougher, I've no idea.

 

[FishFace]

Most of my arguments do not work on AVET... I know, I have tried them repeatedly. That is why I have tried a different tact. Sorry if you think it is "weak."

Split, facts don't work on AVET. 'nuff said.

 

[FishFace]

Problem 3: AV seems to be assuming that something can be created without also having been formed. If it wasn't ever formed I'd think it would have to be formless. If it's formless, I couldn't hold it in my hand.

Argument ad Word mincing?

You're just crunching semantics here, not the actual argument.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Go with the Bible (over nature). Natural evidence will mislead you.

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection. How do you get from "Nature groans in pain" to "Nature is misleading"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lucapsa,

First of all, we aren't making the Bible out to be another deity. It is the Word of God, period; nothing more, nothing less.

Second of all, God created this universe ex nihilo. In Biblical terms, He spoke the universe into existence. Scientists today claim that the amount of matter/energy is a constant, and has always been a constant; whereas the Bible portrays a starting point of zero matter/energy, that steadily increases over a period of six days, until it reaches its current amount.

Thirdly, nature currently is hostile to God and His creation. Look around. All you see is death, destruction, and decay, sometimes packaged as a beautiful spectacle, as in nebulas and novas. Nature is a killer that demands absolute obedience to its laws; but as Paul points out, it does so against its intended purpose. There is coming a time when God is going to intervene and return nature to its amicable state, starting with the elements on the Periodic Table (as Peter makes clear). Since Jesus Himself is the One behind the strong nuclear force (Colossians 1:17), all He has to do is release His hold, and the events of 2 Peter 3:10 will take place.

[bible]Colossians 1:17[/bible][bible]2 Peter 3:10[/bible]

Fourthly, Genesis 1 is a detailed account of the Creation, in chronological order. Genesis 2 simply contains 20 words in verse 19 that are considered out of sync, but could easily be parenthetical, not contradictory. Take Romans for example. There are three whole chapters that are parenthetical (4,5, and 6 - I think). Do we throw the book of Romans out because of it? --- The book of Proverbs is another example. It contains two back-to-back verses that [supposedly] contradict each other: [bible]Proverbs 26:4[/bible][bible]Proverbs 26:5[/bible] Should we throw that book out too, as some suggest?

Jesus said that man shall live by every word: [bible]Matthew 4:4[/bible] And since our God is a jealous God, He jealously guards and protects It from even nature itself, which is currently hostile to It.

 

[Jet Black]

Since Jesus Himself is the One behind the strong nuclear force.

you know you're making christianity look ridiculous?

Jesus is behind the strong force? he needs a better grip.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, God could have created the entire universe with the appearance of age.

I am on record as rejecting the Omphalos Hypothesis.

This universe has the appearance of age, because this universe was created with age.

It looks old, because it is old.

Omphalos says it looks old, but is, in fact, young.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I am on record as rejecting the Omphalos Hypothesis.

This universe has the appearance of age, because this universe was created with age.

It looks old, because it is old.

Omphalos says it looks old, but is, in fact, young.

Something cannot be both old and young at the same time. You can either have

1. an old universe that looks old
2. an old universe that looks young
3. a young universe that looks old or
4. a young universe that looks young.

In cases 2 and 3, God is a deciever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something cannot be both old and young at the same time.

I totally agree.

 

[Jet Black]

This universe has the appearance of age, because this universe was created with age.

so all that stuff actually happened billions of years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

so all that stuff actually happened billions of years ago?

Roughly 6100 years ago. This earth has only gone around the sun about 6100 times.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I totally agree.

No, obviously you don't. You claim that the universe was created 6100 years ago and is somehow 4.5 billion years old at the same time.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim that the universe was created 6100 years ago and is somehow 4.5 billion years old at the same time.

Obviously that word "somehow" was your addition?