Is God deceiving us?

[MKJ]

No one in their right mind seriously thinks that.

Some people seriously do, whether they are in their right mind i won't speculate. But that was the assertion of the individual my original comment was directed at - that God could do what he wanted, including planting false evidence or making things look older than they actually are.

The Catholics have some interesting rules about that, you can't conclude a miracle until all the naturalistic explanations are exhausted. Exorcisms for example are pretty rare, except maybe in Africa, for that reason. The whole problem with approaching a miracle with science because you would have to assume a miracle is a possibility. Given the epistemology it seems unlikely.

It isn't impossible for a scientist to concede that a miracle is possible, it would just limit what could be said about it.

I get what your saying though, you could show up charlatans or maybe clear up misconceptions using empirical methodologies.

Yes - you could place some limits around what had supposedly happened. And of course one could build a circumstantial case, and those can be quite strong depending on the circumstances.

I think it's important to understand that God rested from the work of creation, at least the creation of the natural world. Now God has since created Israel and makes us new creatures in Christ, I doubt you'll get something isolated that you can test in a lab for that. According to most theologians the last day of creation, the Sabbath rest, continues at least until the return of Christ.

Still, prophets challenged God to do things only God can do. I really don't know what kind of manifestation would be suitable for empirical testing but I think such a thing is highly unlikely.

You aren't going to be able to test for anything that is metaphysical in nature, in any case.

We think of miracles as supernatural but for God is the most natural thing in the world.

Sure - the natural world depends on the supernatural. Even a miracle could be achieved by totally natural means - to some extent the designation of something as a miracle has more to do with how we understand it than how it actually came to be.

C.S. Lewis once talked with JRR Tolken about myths and JRR Tolken said he wrote myths and the Bible is a myth, the only difference being that the Bible is true. I think what he was saying is that it's mythic in it's scope but never the less happened.

I am very much in line with both Lewis' and Tolkien's views on both science and mythology. I would put them a bit differently though than I think you are understanding them. I would say that the myths in it are reflective of the reality they seek to describe. In some cases they are meant to have happened - say, the book of Acts. Those historical events are derived from the mythic or metaphysical or spiritual truths that underlie them.

In other cases the myths are meant to describe spiritual realities, but not historical events, or only partially so.

A human poet will try and create myths from reality, but they are imperfect because they don't see the whole picture and because of failure of craft. God doesn't suffer from those problems. Unlike human poets, God's poetry can't tell lies, as Plato accuses the pagan poets of doing.

Remember that Lewis says "I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were pagan and mythical”. He like Tolkien was a scholar of mythology, and they understood it in that sense.

I'm big on evidential apologetics, positive evidence for the Scriptures is one of my favorite studies. The single most important proof for the miracles of the Scriptures is the living witness attached to it, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively.

Miracles are meant I think always to be understood in that sense - otherwise we would be gnostics.

There was this woman at a church I attended for a while, the doctors all said she should abort because a defect was going to deform her horribly. When she was born her only issues were a cleft pallet and web toes. The doctor, as the story goes, when she was born started saying 'She's perfect!'. The church prayed for that baby all the time, was that a miracle. I don't know but God does wonderful things, I don't need a scientist to prove that to me empirically.

medically this turn of events doesn't actually surprise me at all.



They inhabit the savannahs of Africa, not a place you would find fossils very much. The extent of the fossil evidence for Chimpanzee ancestors is three maybe four teeth found in the Rift Valley, that's it. The reason I asked the question is because I believe Chimpanzee fossils are being passed off as human ancestors, the Taung Child for instance. It's small, even for a Chimpanzee child and it looks a lot more like a Chimpanzee the a human. Lucy is another one and there are a few others, I think the way fossils out of Africa are handled is far less then objective, every time an ape fossil is dug up it's automatically celebrated as one of our ancestors.

Just something to think about.

Grace and peace,
Mark[/quote]

 

[MKJ]

Inflation is a supernatural event.


Exactly since it's written in scriptures He spoke this universe into existence. Man creates his universe (World of Warcraft) with age. No doubt man will get better at creating his virtual universals maybe in close to those found in Sci-Fi.



Time is something we have to relate to but God doesn't. You are still trying to understand creation from our end which involves "time" but it's made clear in scriptures it happen on God's end which time doesn't exist.
"Some guys" believe time is the 4th dimension while for all we know it only something we relate to. (if spacetime exist they have to believe in 11 dimensions just to get the math to work since by definition nothing can move in spacetime) But God is outside of time so it doesn't apply to Him as it does to us. He is the creator of time itself. (again these "some guys" have no problem with space stretching faster than the speed of light which we also use to mark time. Inflation itself would cause the universe to appear older than it really is)

It is hard to talk to you because you assert things that simply are incorrect. I know God doesn't have to relate to time. And yet what I said is entirety true - a billion years can go by quickly or slowly, and it is still a billion years for us.

And a physical event is material, not supernatural.

If you don't see how it applies, then I don't see much point discussing it.

 

[Calminian]

...If we looked at those fish at a cellular level, what would it tell us? THat the fish had been alive? Or not? Or they were in fact identical to the other fish? I would suggest that they would not tell us anything that wasn't in fact true.

Actually, I don't think they would talk at all. Now if the fish could talk, they'd tell you to trust the Words of your Creator, not reinterpret them and render them meaningless. But we have to actually interpret evidence and do this based on our presuppositions. If you get those presuppositions wrong, you will interpret the evidence wrong, and be deceived. But that's not God's fault, it's yours. He told you the truth, and you ignored it.

That's rude, and untrue.

Oh you mean calling anyone who's a young earther and repugnant heretic? LOL! It's alright. I've heard it all before. Doesn't even phase me.

No, miracles are not contradictory to science, they do not act according to what we normally expect in nature, which is a rather different thing.

A scientific investigation of a miracle, if it were possible to conclude anything, would show that to be the case, not contradict it.

Now you're arguing that miracles can be scientifically investigated. But how does one do that when science relies on assumptions like the uniformity and consistency of natural processes? How do you investigate a non-uniform event, starting with a premise of uniformity? This would be circular reasoning, drawing a conclusion based on a starting premise.

This is where I think your reasoning breaks down. You think miracles are within the realm of naturalism, which contradicts the biblical view. Miracles are signs and wonders that transcend natural processes. That's what makes them wondrous. Men don't just naturally rise from the dead, and worlds don't just come into existence uncaused for no reason.

 

[Edgar44]

God created His universe in two parts.

1. Internal, which is the mind, the invisible, the spiritual, and can not be measured by the physical sciences.

2. External, which is the body, the physical, the universe and can be measured by physical science.

The Bible is a book which deals with the Internal, it does not pretend to be a book of science. It is a book about how we should love God and each other. When the Bible tells us that the creation was created in six days. We need to understand that it's the 'creation by God' which is important. Not how many hours or days it took.

Science is the study of the external, the job of science is to explain in detail God's works as best it can.

Science and Religion are not opposed to each other, they should be harmonised, just as our minds and bodies are (in the ideal) harmonised.

Religion tells us why. Science tells us how.

The mind is always in the subject position to our body.

Religion also should be in the subject position to science. Complete knowledge of God, can only be attained when we start understanding the spiritual truths of God and the physical truths of His universe.

Religion states first there was light. Science states first there was light, (big bang). There is 'true' truth. God is logical.

Science does not pretend to know all the answers, it is an on going investigation, many religions claim they do have all the answers.

But in truth, religion is also still seeking. Even Jesus said there was more for us to understand.

If science says it has 'measured' how old the universe is, we must learn to look at that evidence. Just as science must learn to understand the spirituality of religion.

God gave us science so we could understand the enormity of Himself, and what He did for mankind.

Both science and religion should be in harmony. This means that both areas may have to humble themselves occasionally.

The Bible is not a scientific Book.

When a parent dies, we tell the child mum or dad has gone to heaven with angels. We do not go into the gory details of a decomposing body.

The Bible is like that, it must be understood from a more mature viewpoint.

The six days of creation for example being six epochs of time, which science has now come to accept.

These days are not actual 24 hour days, but the six days represent six epochs of time. These are similar to the geological periods known as the

Cosmozoic (Cosmic),
Azoic,
Archeozoic,
Proterozoic,
Paleozoic,
Cenozoic

Note for the 4th day of creation (Proterozoic)...

Due to great changes, a layer of gases, smoke and clouds had covered the earth and was dissipated at this time; and the sun, moon and stars, created on the first day, became visible from the earth.

Science and religion will harmonise if given the chance.

 

[mark kennedy]

Some people seriously do, whether they are in their right mind i won't speculate. But that was the assertion of the individual my original comment was directed at - that God could do what he wanted, including planting false evidence or making things look older than they actually are.

That's just not a sensible argument, it begs the question of what the evidence actually indicates. The universe and the earth can look as old as they look, it makes no difference to what actually happened at creation. If we think it looks old when it's young or assume the earth and the universe are young because Adam was created 6,000 years ago that's our misconception, not God planting evidence. The proposition is fallacious.

It isn't impossible for a scientist to concede that a miracle is possible, it would just limit what could be said about it.

That much I agree with but science is a discipline that looks at naturally occurring phenomenon. That's just the epistemology, I think it's unlikely that there is a discipline in science that can investigate a miracle.

Yes - you could place some limits around what had supposedly happened. And of course one could build a circumstantial case, and those can be quite strong depending on the circumstances.

I suppose...

You aren't going to be able to test for anything that is metaphysical in nature, in any case.

No, but String Theory is metaphysics when you really think about it. I guess that's why as long as physics has worked on coming up with a unified theory they still haven't been able to get it done.

Sure - the natural world depends on the supernatural. Even a miracle could be achieved by totally natural means - to some extent the designation of something as a miracle has more to do with how we understand it than how it actually came to be.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

I am very much in line with both Lewis' and Tolkien's views on both science and mythology. I would put them a bit differently though than I think you are understanding them. I would say that the myths in it are reflective of the reality they seek to describe. In some cases they are meant to have happened - say, the book of Acts. Those historical events are derived from the mythic or metaphysical or spiritual truths that underlie them.

I just liked the expression, 'true myth', and I don't think a myth is ever meant to be taken figuratively. The book of Acts on the other hand isn't meant to be taken as anything other then a detailed history. There are certain criteria for determining whether or not something historical is verifiable like, the reliability of the witness or the veracity of the description.

As far as metaphysics, I think we might be using that term differently. The definition I always liked what 'the substantive element that transcends reality'. It's actually a pretty challenging field of study, usually categorized as a systematic philosophy. Aristotle wrote a pretty interesting book on metaphysics and like many philosophers concluded God as the primary source, the unmoved mover, for instance.

In other cases the myths are meant to describe spiritual realities, but not historical events, or only partially so.

Myths are invariably told as narratives, they do seem to have a moral to the story but I wouldn't confuse them with fables.

A human poet will try and create myths from reality, but they are imperfect because they don't see the whole picture and because of failure of craft. God doesn't suffer from those problems. Unlike human poets, God's poetry can't tell lies, as Plato accuses the pagan poets of doing.

Well any human expression can be deceitful, we do have the requisite moral flaws for that. You don't really run into that kind of dilemma with Hebrew prophecy, the problems usually come when you try to unravel some of the riddles in prophecy. I guess when God got tired of the ancient Hebrews often the prophets conveyed messages in riddles. At one point Jesus was telling the crowds parables but would only tell the Apostles the meaning.

Remember that Lewis says "I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were pagan and mythical”. He like Tolkien was a scholar of mythology, and they understood it in that sense.

Lewis taught some wonderful things, that just doesn't happen to be one of them. For me, the Hebrew Scriptures represent the only living history from antiquity. The others are from dead languages, dead religions and nations that have long since passed away. I see no indication that the Pentateuch was derived by anything other then a direct revelation from God himself.

Miracles are meant I think always to be understood in that sense - otherwise we would be gnostics.

I don't think so, miracles in the New Testament are signs that God is confirming the Word that is going out. You see them during the time of Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles. That's when you see most of the miracles and it's God doing what only God can do to confirm the revelation is from him.

medically this turn of events doesn't actually surprise me at all.

I was never sure but I can't tell you how relived I was to hear the baby was fine. I've experienced things I believed was directly from God but I think God can do that without making a dramatic scene. Most miracles I think God will do for the benefit of the one the miracle effects, even Jesus didn't like to publicize his miracles except as a witness.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

These days are not actual 24 hour days, but the six days represent six epochs of time. These are similar to the geological periods known as the

Cosmozoic (Cosmic),
Azoic,
Archeozoic,
Proterozoic,
Paleozoic,
Cenozoic

Note for the 4th day of creation (Proterozoic)...

Due to great changes, a layer of gases, smoke and clouds had covered the earth and was dissipated at this time; and the sun, moon and stars, created on the first day, became visible from the earth.

Science and religion will harmonise if given the chance.

Pure supposition and conjecture, Genesis 1 is clear on the order and time frame of creation. You either believe it or you don't. You don't really get the option of explaining an act of God as if it were a metaphor for naturally occurring phenomenon.

 

[Edgar44]

Pure supposition and conjecture, Genesis 1 is clear on the order and time frame of creation. You either believe it or you don't. You don't really get the option of explaining an act of God as if it were a metaphor for naturally occurring phenomenon.

You don't get it.

I'm saying that the Bible is correct, and that science is in agreement.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God is telling us that first He created the body from the elements, 'then' He made man a living soul. There existed a period of time in which the physical body of man existed, though he was not yet 'man', as we understand ourselves to be.

We can create the hardware of a computer, but it does not 'become' a computer until the software is installed.

God created man from the dust (the elements), which formed our physical body. During this period, those 'physical bodies' could be likened to the Apes.

Those 'apes' multiplied into tribes, lots of tribes. And over the course of a long period of time those 'Apes', evolved and developed until the day God said, now to make man a living soul by breathing into man 'the breath of life'.

One tribe produces a boy, another tribe produces a girl. We call this boy Adam and the girl Eve.

From this first couple called Adam and Eve, come all mankind as we understand ourselves to be.

Creationists are correct, God created mankind in the first couple, and they were not from 'Apes'. For man is much more than just a physical body with 'instincts'.

Science is correct too, the first couple had belly buttons, (parents).

Both versions are in harmony. But we need to be humble to see this.

Why are science and religion fighting?

Our mind (religion) has to become harmonised with our body (science/evolution), or we will never have the full truth.

Pure supposition and conjecture

Perhaps it is, doesn't make it wrong though.

One of mankind's greatest thinkers understood this.

Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

 

[MKJ]

Oh you mean calling anyone who's a young earther and repugnant heretic? LOL! It's alright. I've heard it all before. Doesn't even phase me.

I did not say that. I said that saying God could lie was a repugnant heresy. Which is rather different than saying YEC is a repugnant heresy, and very different than calling an individual a repugnant heretic.

Now you're arguing that miracles can be scientifically investigated. But how does one do that when science relies on assumptions like the uniformity and consistency of natural processes? How do you investigate a non-uniform event, starting with a premise of uniformity? This would be circular reasoning, drawing a conclusion based on a starting premise.

This is where I think your reasoning breaks down. You think miracles are within the realm of naturalism, which contradicts the biblical view. Miracles are signs and wonders that transcend natural processes. That's what makes them wondrous. Men don't just naturally rise from the dead, and worlds don't just come into existence uncaused for no reason.

No, that isn't how I understand miracles. Some may in fact be naturalistic, but I don't see that as necessary. What is impossible is that God would make something look like it happened when it didn't.

So, for example, if the universe is really 6000 years old, we should not see things that happened in other parts of the universe that are a million light years away, because nothing existed then. If we "see" it and it didn't happen, it is a falsification.

 

[mark kennedy]

You don't get it.
I'm saying that the Bible is correct, and that science is in agreement.

Except you have no interest in either...

 

[Calminian]

...No, that isn't how I understand miracles. Some may in fact be naturalistic, but I don't see that as necessary. What is impossible is that God would make something look like it happened when it didn't....

Agreed, and it doesn't. The deception is not with God it is with you. You think things look like they happened when the didn't because you didn't start your reasoning process from the Bible. Instead you trusted the fallible theories of men and started with their presuppositions.

So, for example, if the universe is really 6000 years old, we should not see things that happened in other parts of the universe that are a million light years away, because nothing existed then. ....

And how you know this? Do you perfectly understand how light and time work? I don't even think the smartest scientists do yet. Did you know time can dilate? Did you know that in the last century we discovered time is not constant like we thought it was, and dilates when gravity is high and velocity is high?

And this really blew my mind. Did you know that not too long ago, we discovered a cluster of galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light? In fact, I think they said it was over 30x the speed of light.

And did you know that scriptures says in numerous places that God stretched out the universe? How did that event in the past affect time in the deep regions of outer-space? The fact is, we weren't there and don't know. When you throw a miracle like that into the mix, 6000 years ago earth-standard-time, who knows what the effect is going to be?

What I know is, God says He made the heavens earth and sea in six days a few thousand years ago. I don't know exactly how everything came together, but I believe Him!

 

[Edgar44]

Except you have no interest in either...

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Edgar44]

Our minds and bodies should exist in complete harmony, this is not a statement of faith, nor is it a discovery of science. It simply is an obvious and universal Truth.

Our Minds Exist in a realm very different from that of our bodies, in that our minds are free from the constraints of space and time. The role of religion exists to guide us within this invisible environment.

Our bodies, on the other hand are constrained by time and space, and so requires to know the boundaries of those constraints, this is the role of science. To choose to accept only the wisdom of religion as truth, is as foolish as saying ‘I don’t require my legs to walk’.

If we choose only to accept the knowledge of science, and reject the wisdom of faith, we again make a foolish decision.

That would be like saying ‘I’m going to build my house without a plan’.

“TRUTH”, can only be complete and full when the wisdom of religion and the knowledge of science are united in a harmonious relationship of give and take, or cause and effect.

In saying this, it must also be fully understood, that religious understanding is still evolving, while science must have faith in it’s future discoveries.

 

[SkyWriting]

I know you don't believe any forensic study of the past is possible. But if that were true it would be impossible to investigate anything that happened in the past, such as the cause of a fire which burned down a building (important for insurance companies) and the cause of an unexplained death (was it accident, suicide, murder?)

Exploring the more distant past means we have fewer facts to go on, but as long as there is some undisturbed evidence, a forensic investigation is possible and it is possible to say that some conclusions are more probable than others.

Absolutely! We can say what ever we want about our thoughts and musings on probabilities. But nothing we can say can ever have any effect on reality. Our prediction of 50 coin heads and 50 tails will never have the slightest effect on the outcome. Ever.
The same going backwards.

 

[gluadys]

Absolutely! We can say what ever we want about our thoughts and musings on probabilities. But nothing we can say can ever have any effect on reality. Our prediction of 50 coin heads and 50 tails will never have the slightest effect on the outcome. Ever.
The same going backwards.

I disagree that we can say "anything we want" about probabilities. When probabilities are based on known causes with measurable effects, the probabilities themselves can be measured, or at least closely estimated. If the weather forecast for rain is 5%, I will likely leave my umbrella at home (and may still get caught in a shower) but if it is 95% I will take my umbrella with me (and may not need it). Measured probabilities don't change anomalous realities, but they do tell you what is the most likely reality--past, present or future. It is only when the probabilities are close to 50% that we know no more than the potential outcome of a coin toss.

At bottom, all science is probability. That is far from making it useless as a predictor.

 

[SkyWriting]

I disagree that we can say "anything we want" about probabilities. When probabilities are based on known causes with measurable effects, the probabilities themselves can be measured, or at least closely estimated. If the weather forecast for rain is 5%, I will likely leave my umbrella at home (and may still get caught in a shower) but if it is 95% I will take my umbrella with me (and may not need it). Measured probabilities don't change anomalous realities, but they do tell you what is the most likely reality--past, present or future. It is only when the probabilities are close to 50% that we know no more than the potential outcome of a coin toss. At bottom, all science is probability. That is far from making it useless as a predictor.

Is that a 5% chance that rain will fall, or rain will fall but on 5% of the predicted area, or rain will fall 5% of the day?
Or are you just saying anything you want about probabilities?

 

[gluadys]

Is that a 5% chance that rain will fall, or rain will fall but on 5% of the predicted area, or rain will fall 5% of the day?

I think typically that the prediction is that there is a 5% chance that rain will fall somewhere within the area covered by the prediction within the time period covered by the prediction. It does not suggest how much of the area may experience rain nor exactly when it may fall. At 5% probability it is most likely there will be no rain at all. But if you happen to be caught in a shower, don't say you weren't warned.

 

[Skybringr]

The whole point is that you were born with self evidence of God- atheists simply went on a tangent to disprove Him and failed; there is no explanation to the origins of our reality other then God.

Physicists will tell you, if they were honest- there is no other explanation as it stands now of reality other then God created it.

 

[SkyWriting]

The whole point is that you were born with self evidence of God- atheists simply went on a tangent to disprove Him and failed; there is no explanation to the origins of our reality other then God.

Physicists will tell you, if they were honest- there is no other explanation as it stands now of reality other then God created it.

But people are not born self-evident, nor does scripture suggest that.
People are born into a sin-world disconnected from God and His presence.
Reality does testify to his unseen attributes, but people are sent a
powerful delusion by the Father Himself.