Hypothetical for Scientists

[funyun]

Have a good day, everyone!

Wow, it worked.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I actually like this answer --- and was expecting it.

Well - do you have any answers to my question?

 

[TheManeki]

No it doesn't --- God may have had a very good reason for doing it that way that we haven't discovered yet.

Also, please tell me how that's "deceitful" when He put what He did in writing?

It seems, AV, that your question has more to do with the nature of God, then, than creation and evolution. Your take is that God enjoys pranking creation (that whole Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil snafu was just the forerunner to Punk'd). I think God tends to abide by the rules he set up to govern this place, and these rules are elucidated by science. Other people here have some other valid views on the matter.

Maybe you should post your questions in a more appropriate forum than this one.

 

[Pesto]

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?​

CHAPTER ONE​

There stands before you a plant known as, let's call it, a Tree.​

This Tree forms one ring called a Treeon every year on January 1.​

Analysis shows that the Tree standing before you has 100 Treeon rings embedded in it.​

CHAPTER TWO​

Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time a Tree is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 0 Treeons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the plant.​

CHAPTER THREE​

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

YOU: Not so --- I have a Tree plant with 100 Treeons in it. This is evidence that this plant is 100 years old.​

CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) the Tree, He must have created it with 100 Treeons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 0 Treeons into it.​

QUESTION​

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

 

[Pesto]

Have you ever written a word so many times that it begins to look completely bizarre?

tree, tree, tree. GAH!

 

[llDayo]

Pesto, couldn't you have just called them Tree Rings?

 

[FishFace]

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

Not really, but before I explain, I like the example.

The reason being that Mr Ian hasn't provided any evidence for God, or that God creates Dalite differently than it forms naturally, or that God did, or that this Book of his is worth listening to.

In other words, you have two basic possibilities. Either one of the four things that Chris has claimed (three implicitly claimed, one explicitly) is wrong, or the original guy's claim - that the rock is 999,990 years old - is wrong.

Now, I said not really, instead of "no," and I don't want to mislead people; before I go on, I must stress that, in my opinion, no evidence is ever truly conclusive. When we say evidence is conclusive, I guess we really mean evidence is conclusive enough. Hope that's clear.

Anyway, we start from the position we know we have evidence for - that dalite naturally forms with 1,000,000 dalons. With this and only this belief, the logical conclusion is that the rock in question is very old. It is only when we add beliefs - about God, creation, the Book, etc, that we can logically come to a different conclusion.
So, if we add those beliefs, so that we believe:

1 - dalite forms with 1,000,000 dalons
2 - God creates dalite with 110 dalons
3 - God created this piece of dalite

(leaving out a few for simplicity) the evidence would be inconclusive - either God could have created it - in which case it's 100 years old - or it formed naturally, in which case it's 999,990 years old.

The question for me is not whether the evidence is inconclusive once you have those beliefs, but whether it actually makes sense to add them. And there is a certain lack of evidence for them that leads me to say "no."

First, your entire basis for adding these beliefs is The Book. But Mr Ian has provided no evidence that his Book is reliable. Internally fulfilled predictions aren't good enough.
That leaves belief in God and belief that God can create Dalite without evidence too.
But you also have no evidence that God created the piece of Dalite you are looking at, or that God creates Dalite with 110 Dalons. Indeed, if I may by so presumptuous as to guess at the contents and beliefs of Mr Ian, creating Dalite as such, would make him deceptive, since all he's left behind saying he might've done is a dusty old Book, which doesn't actually mention any specifics. It therefore looks as if the Dalite is older than it actually is, and anyone who's a bit skeptical of The Book being supremely correct, would consequently believe, incorrectly, that the rock is 999,990 years old.

 

[FishFace]

Hey AV1611VET

You have not answered my question:

Can God create a boulder so large that he cannot lift it?

Hrhr, aren't you clever? Come on, this is the atheist's equivalent of a PRATT. You should perhaps look at some philosophical/theological sources on the internet, since plenty of people have addressed the subject.

Starting point: the question makes as much sense, given the classical definition of God, as asking, "Can God do something he cannot do?" It's just gibberish.

 

[moogley]

It would stand as conclusive, unless Chris had more conclusive evidence supporting the book was truth.

 

[funyun]

Hrhr, aren't you clever? Come on, this is the atheist's equivalent of a PRATT. You should perhaps look at some philosophical/theological sources on the internet, since plenty of people have addressed the subject.

Starting point: the question makes as much sense, given the classical definition of God, as asking, "Can God do something he cannot do?" It's just gibberish.

PRATTs arise with respect to empirically testable topics. You cannot refute a philosophical argument in the same fashion as you would refute an argument based on data (or lack thereof).

 

[tanzanos]

Hrhr, aren't you clever? Come on, this is the atheist's equivalent of a PRATT. You should perhaps look at some philosophical/theological sources on the internet, since plenty of people have addressed the subject.

Starting point: the question makes as much sense, given the classical definition of God, as asking, "Can God do something he cannot do?" It's just gibberish.

OK! Let's put it this way; Creationists insist that God being almighty could and did play havoc with the laws of physics. He created the universe 6,000 yrs ago yet made it look 4.5 billion years old. He creates a flood with water 15 times the amount found on earth yet makes the excess water disappear after the flood. So would it not be logical to say that such an almighty being cannot exist with the powers attributed to him simply because he cannot make something that can surpass his powers. God as a notion is a philosophical one so since God is mentioned in this thread it is logical that I will put forward a philosophical question. God cannot and should not be mixed with science. It would be a travesty to erudition were the two to be compared with each other.

 

[Tenka]

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

Is the claim that a god exists and created the rocks testable or verifiable in any way? ..no?

Then that claim goes in the ad hoc pile and the evidence is conclusive, the rock is as old is it is tested to show.

Ad hocery does not trump evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

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 will answer first as a scientist and then as a Christian.

Before I do so, this is the Appearance of Age argument. It was first put forward in 1857 in a book entitled Oomphalos by Rev. Phillip Gosse. That you are still using it dressed up differently just shows that creationism has nothing new to offer.​

1. Science has no answer to the Appearance of Age argument. Yes, God could have created the entire universe with the appearance of age. As long as it was all consistent, we could not detect this by science. Gould takes this to extremes in Last Tuesdayism. That is, God created the entire universe instantaneously last Tuesday, with all the appearances of age -- including our memories.​

2. As a Christian, I utterly reject the argument and say it is not possible that the evidence is inconclusive. Why? Because the argument makes God a liar! God could easily have made the universe look young if it is. There is no reason to make the universe appear old if it is not. Remember, Creation is just as much God's as the Bible. If God lies in Creation, then we can't believe God in the areas that are really important: that Jesus really did rise from the dead, that God will forgive us our sins, that God will give us eternal life.​

The argument may save creationism, but the price is destruction of Christianity and rejection of God. I won't pay the price.​

In fact, Gosse's argument was rejected by the Christians of his day. Gosse asked Rev. Charles Kingsley to write the Foreword to the book. Kingsley refused and wrote this letter in reply:​

Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands." ​

Now, if you noticed, Rev. Kingsley wrote this 2 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. Kingsley was one of the first clergy to accept evolution.​

​

 

[FishFace]

OK! Let's put it this way; Creationists insist that God being almighty could and did play havoc with the laws of physics. He created the universe 6,000 yrs ago yet made it look 4.5 billion years old. He creates a flood with water 15 times the amount found on earth yet makes the excess water disappear after the flood. So would it not be logical to say that such an almighty being cannot exist with the powers attributed to him simply because he cannot make something that can surpass his powers.

No, it wouldn't. First of all, looking at God's claimed powers of physical manipulation is not actually enough to claim omnipotence. Then you still have the problem that the question, "Can God do something he cannot do" doesn't make any sense. All of these questions - a boulder he cannot lift, can he forget, can he learn - they all ask whether God can do something he cannot do.

Your reply simply restates the question, it does not address the response, put forward by theists (and me, too) for ages.

 

[lucaspa]

First of all, looking at God's claimed powers of physical manipulation is not actually enough to claim omnipotence.

Correct. All the actions of God in scripture simply have a being that is VERY powerful, but it does not follow that this means omnipotence.

Then you still have the problem that the question, "Can God do something he cannot do" doesn't make any sense.

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

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.

it does not address the response, put forward by theists (and me, too) for ages.

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 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.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's decietful if nature tells us one thing and "God's" book tells us something different. Which should we choose? Why would nature be wrong? And how can truth contradict truth?

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

[bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should I believe Chris T. Ian? Does he have evidence for his claim that God created the rock with 110 dalons in it? Why should I take The Book over what reality tells me?

I actually like this answer --- and was expecting it.

Well - do you have any answers to my question?

I really don't want to add to my hypothetical, but since you asked:

Chris' Book contains history written in advance, and fulfilled with a 100% rate of accuracy; something no other book has ever done.

 

[funyun]

Hey, Lucaspa. Didn't know you still hung around these parts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your take is that God enjoys pranking creation...

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

Maybe you should post your questions in a more appropriate forum than this one.

Why? If you won't answer it here, what makes you think you'll answer it somewhere else?

(Shall I put you down for "inconclusive"?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever written a word so many times that it begins to look completely bizarre?

tree, tree, tree. GAH!

So I take it your answer is: inconclusive?