My Pumice Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Can God create pumice ex nihilo tomorrow without deception?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can God create pumice ex nihilo tomorrow without deception?

If an omniscient god exists, I guess so. Creating in and of itself isn't deceptive.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here; making something to look old and making it out of the blue are two different things.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can God create pumice ex nihilo tomorrow without deception?

I am not sure what you are getting at either, but an omnipotent God can by definition do anything he wants.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am not sure what you are getting at either, but an omnipotent God can by definition do anything he wants.

Well, maybe it will clarify it if I mention that ex nihilo means "out of nothing". Not suggesting you don't know that, but I am sure it will help some people; I had to look it up, I learned Latin roots and such in medical terminology, but I don't speak Latin and this phrase isn't used in medicine often, if at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

If an omniscient god exists, I guess so. Creating in and of itself isn't deceptive.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here; making something to look old and making it out of the blue are two different things.

Thank you, Sarah, for an honest answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not sure what you are getting at either, but an omnipotent God can by definition do anything he wants.

The clincher in my challenge though is: "without deception."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you, Sarah, for an honest answer.

I am always honest. I find it too hard to lie to bother most of the time, and I certainly don't have the motivation to do so online. Withhold information such as where I live, sure, I am not giving that out, but if I am willing to talk about it, then I will be honest about it.

 

[lesliedellow]

The clincher in my challenge though is: "without deception."

Exactly where is the deception in creating something?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly where is the deception in creating something?

That was my point; creating by itself isn't deceptive. Creating something in a way that it is going to deceive people, knowing that it will, on the other hand, is deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly where is the deception in creating something?

Most "educated" people here will conclude that a literal Genesis 1 would constitute deception on God's part.

Even though He put what He did in Writing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Most "educated" people here will conclude that a literal Genesis 1 would constitute deception on God's part.

Even though He put what He did in Writing.

Supposedly

 

[AV1611VET]

Supposedly

Supposedly or not, He gets accused of deception.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Supposedly or not, He gets accused of deception.

If the bible has no actual association with any deity, which is what I believe, then no deception on the part of any deity that exists.

I don't think the bible is anything but the words of ancient men, so I don't associate it with the validity of any deity.

 

[lesliedellow]

Most "educated" people here will conclude that a literal Genesis 1 would constitute deception on God's part.

Even though He put what He did in Writing.

Just for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that God really did create the Earth only 6,000 years ago.

Then, in spite of the fact that it is only 6,000 years old, everywhere you look there is evidence that it is much much older.

So what did God think he was up to in planting all that false evidence? Was he deliberately trying to deceive us, and, if so, why?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that God really did create the Earth only 6,000 years ago.

Then, in spite of the fact that it is only 6,000 years old, everywhere you look there is evidence that it is much much older.

So what did God think he was up to in planting all that false evidence? Was he deliberately trying to deceive us, and, if so, why?

God also kills children, so I don't see why god can't be deceptive. Killing kids is a lot worse then lying, in my opinion.

 

[lesliedellow]

God also kills children, so I don't see why god can't be deceptive. Killing kids is a lot worse then lying, in my opinion.

God kills every single one of us sooner or later.

To talk about what God does is to presuppose he exists, even if just for the sake of argument.

So, if God exists, and he brings somebody's physical life to an end, what's the big deal? There is an eternal life hereafter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

God kills every single one of us sooner or later.
To talk about what God does is to presuppose he exists, even if just for the sake of argument.
So, if God exists, and he brings somebody's physical life to an end, what's the big deal? There is an eternal life hereafter.

In one case, god had children mauled and killed by two bears for making fun of a believer's baldness. Those kids did nothing beyond be the kind of jerks kids can sometimes be.

If that is the god that exists, I am not sure I would want to worship it.

 

[EternalDragon]

If an omniscient god exists, I guess so. Creating in and of itself isn't deceptive.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here; making something to look old and making it out of the blue are two different things.

If God created dry land for the earth in an instant, why would it look young?

What features would something have to look young? For instance, if God created our sun as a G-class star, in an instant, what features would it have to make it appear as though it was just created in an instant?

 

[lesliedellow]

For instance, if God created our sun as a G-class star, in an instant, what features would it have to make it appear as though it was just created in an instant?

To make it look as if it was created only 6,000 years ago, its spectroscopy would have to indicate that it contained next to no helium.

 

[EternalDragon]

To make it look as if it was created only 6,000 years ago, its spectroscopy would have to indicate that it contained next to no helium.

Why would a recently created, mature sun have to have next to no helium? If it has helium, it is there for a reason. It regulates the heat and stability of a star. Less helium = colder sun. More helium = hotter sun.

Does 24% helium qualify as "next to no helium"? That is what they "estimate" our sun contains. In reality, it has to be estimated because it can't be accurately measured. Sorry, try again.

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer

As an aside, looking at the sun billions of years into it's past makes the sun colder and of course the earth colder. Frozen solid to be exact, where the sun needs to be 25% BRIGHTER THAN IT IS TODAY just to thaw the earth out. So you have run into the Faint Young Sun problem again.