Hypothetical for Scientists

[AV1611VET]

If God intended us to exist from the beginning, but a young earth was not capable of sustaining us, then God made a mistake. Either God made a mistake, which you claim he corrected by "aging" the earth, or God didn't intend us to exist from the beginning.

Either that, or you are the one making the mistake. Did that thought ever occur to you?

[bible]Romans 3:4[/bible]

If God cannot create in such a way that a young earth can sustain life, then it is God who is constrained.

Adam and Eve could indeed live on a young earth (in my opinion), because they had glorified bodies in Eden.

BUT, knowing that they would soon lose their glorified bodies in the Fall, God created this earth as a mature planet, so they could live on it.

In other words, had the earth not been a mature one, then when Adam and Eve lost their glorified bodies, they would have died on the spot.

The only way they could remain alive forever, would have been to eat of the "other tree" --- the Tree of Life, and live forever in a physical body.

But God intends for us to live in a glorified body, so He blocked the way to the Tree of Life.

 

[nvxplorer]

Either that, or you are the one making the mistake. Did that thought ever occur to you?

Or maybe you are mistaken. Rubber-glue arguments don't carry much weight, AV. Got anything reasonable?

Adam and Eve could indeed live on a young earth (in my opinion), because they had glorified bodies in Eden.

BUT, knowing that they would soon lose their glorified bodies in the Fall, God created this earth as a mature planet, so they could live on it.

In other words, had the earth not been a mature one, then when Adam and Eve lost their glorified bodies, they would have died on the spot.

The only way they could remain alive forever, would have been to eat of the "other tree" --- the Tree of Life, and live forever in a physical body.

But God intends for us to live in a glorified body, so He blocked the way to the Tree of Life.

*scratches head*

Okie-dokie, AV.

 

[FishFace]

God can't, huh?

Let me ask you this. Has it ever been demonstrated that you can turn a basketball inside-out without breaking its surface?

You are suggesting, as a counterexample to logical impossibility, something that is logically possible, but practically impossible?
That's... quite insulting, really.

A square circle has never been demonstrated. There is a reason for that. It is because "square" and "circle" are mutually, logically exclusive. You cannot have both at the same time. The fact that I say a square circle is impossible is absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a square circle has never been demonstrated to me. Simply understanding the two words is sufficient to decide that it is an impossibility.

Likewise, understanding the words "age" and "history," one can immediately realise that it is impossible for something to be a year old when it didn't exist until yesterday, and that it is impossible to have 200 years of age without that many years of history. Or whatever you're arguing, because, to be honest, it's easy to forget which way you're trying to contort the English language.

 

[FishFace]

Because it is.

Something cannot be older than it is. Consider the two statements:

1 - I am 18 years old.
2 - I am 20 years old.

Given that these two statements were made less than a year apart, it is impossible for them both to be true.

In my opinion, the reason He did that is because a young earth would not have been able to sustain life; it had to be a mature earth.

But he could quite easily have made a brand new earth with trees and so on. But that would be Omphalos. You are suggesting that he made something older than it is, apparently, which is (apparently) not Omphalos, but which is impossible, and is not necessary to sustain life.

It would also not have been necessary to make it appear 4.5 billion years old, since the earth could have been made quite new, with just enough already growing on it to cater to its new inhabitants. The rocks needn't have had daughter material in, for example.

EDIT:

And you certainly wouldn't need evidence of, say, human existence and civilization going back thousands of years before the world began.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rubber-glue arguments don't carry much weight, AV. Got anything reasonable?

Ya --- if all else fails --- try my sig.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ya --- if all else fails --- try my sig.

Sadly, you have yet to provide us any reason to believe you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something cannot be older than it is.

No kidding.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sadly, you have yet to provide us any reason to believe you.

Us?

 

[Atheuz]

Us?

Non Fundamentalists, Theistic Evolutionists, Atheists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Deists, Agnostics ... Every other belief that isn't your own?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya --- if all else fails --- try my sig.

That's even more useless than the Rubber-glue argument.

 

[tanzanos]

One should know better than to debate anything with AV1. Actually I am impressed by AV1's knowledge of the past. So I have a proposition: AV1 will you be willing to rewrite the bible according to whatever suits your fancy? If yes then pleeeeeaaassseee save a signed copy for me.

 

[FishFace]

No kidding.

And yet you said it could happen... interesting.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

My whole church understands. In fact, I just brought that up to my wife yesterday, and she understands.

I used to think the earth was only 6100 years old, until my pastor preached otherwise --- and I had no problem with it at all.

Then maybe you should go ask your church and wife to come up with a better way of explaining this, because right now you are simply claiming logical impossibilities.

 

[PacificPandeist]

God can't, huh?

Let me ask you this. Has it ever been demonstrated that you can turn a basketball inside-out without breaking its surface?

That's a different class of things.... I have no doubt that God could pull off such a feat, but God can not make a Euclidian triangle with internal angles of more than 180 degrees....

But here's a possibility -- you know how, when matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down? So, from the perspective of the fast moving object, a few hours might pass while from the perspective of people on the ground years have gone by? Well, suppose (this is just a hypothetical now) that for a time the Garden of Eden was moving very close to the speed of light, relative to the rest of the Universe.... a year or ten or a hundred could pass in the Garden of Eden, while 13.7 billion passed in the rest of the Universe!!

Not exactly what my own PanDeistic theory sets out, but food for thought!!

 

[Blayz]

But here's a possibility -- you know how, when matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down? So, from the perspective of the fast moving object, a few hours might pass while from the perspective of people on the ground years have gone by? Well, suppose (this is just a hypothetical now) that for a time the Garden of Eden was moving very close to the speed of light, relative to the rest of the Universe.... a year or ten or a hundred could pass in the Garden of Eden, while 13.7 billion passed in the rest of the Universe!!

Not exactly what my own PanDeistic theory sets out, but food for thought!!

Not really. "relative to the rest of the universe" is another term for "absolute", and velocity is relative. However, if the Garden of Eden was hovering in a large gravity well, say near the event horizon of a black hole, and somehow protected from gravitation tide, and then moved out more normal space, and then God doesn't bother telling us any of this in his book-of-all-knowledge, then yes, it is indeed possible.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not really. "relative to the rest of the universe" is another term for "absolute", and velocity is relative.

Not quite. The universe itself picks out a preferred reference frame, and it is possible to move with respect to it.

However, if the Garden of Eden was hovering in a large gravity well, say near the event horizon of a black hole, and somehow protected from gravitation tide, and then moved out more normal space, and then God doesn't bother telling us any of this in his book-of-all-knowledge, then yes, it is indeed possible.

Moving in a big circle at high velocity would also do it (see the twins paradox).

 

[Blayz]

Not quite. The universe itself picks out a preferred reference frame, and it is possible to move with respect to it.

Really? Didn't know that. Got a reference?

Moving in a big circle at high velocity would also do it (see the twins paradox).

True. Acceleration is absolute. However, application of such a force would have been "felt", I would have thought. Maybe the Garden of Eden had inertial dampeners

 

[Chalnoth]

Really? Didn't know that. Got a reference?

The rest frame of the universe (well, at least of the part of it that we can see) is set by the CMB. That is, there are observers for which the CMB is almost completely isotropic (to about one part in 100,000). We are not one of those, as we appear to be moving at about 300km/sec with respect to the CMB. Basically, the CMB in one direction is slightly blue shifted compared to the CMB in the opposite direction.

Now, we don't expect that there is anything fundamental about this rest frame. That is, we fully expect Lorentz covariance to hold. But the dynamics of our local region of the universe, that part that we can observe, are such that a particular reference frame is picked out.

True. Acceleration is absolute. However, application of such a force would have been "felt", I would have thought. Maybe the Garden of Eden had inertial dampeners

Hehe
Yeah, I have no idea what sort of acceleration would be required to keep a garden inside of a 13.7 billion light year circumference circle, moving at very nearly the speed of light.

 

[MarcusHill]

Yeah, I have no idea what sort of acceleration would be required to keep a garden inside of a 13.7 billion light year circumference circle, moving at very nearly the speed of light.

It wouldn't be a circle - you'd have to start within a day of the Big Bang, and then move (if you want minimum acceleration) in a spiral as the universe expands. The initial rapid acceleration wouldn't be too bad, since the stuff created early on Day 1 isn't that bothered by high forces. Maybe that's why God didn't create anything on Day 7 - he was steering the whole shebang to the Sol-3 region on that day.

 

[FishFace]

Yeah, I have no idea what sort of acceleration would be required to keep a garden inside of a 13.7 billion light year circumference circle, moving at very nearly the speed of light.

Well, taking classic dynamics...

a = v²/r,

take r = 13.7 billion light years / 3.1416
take v = c - 100 m/s

a = 2.18 * 10^-9 m/s²

Not very much! I assume that this is messed up rather by relativity, though, And also, the force required would presumably be rather large since the earth would gain mass.