Noah's Ark

[Colter]

You got it!

So God created the earth to look old and to look as if life evolved? He made the earth to appear in contrast to the book which the holy men claim he wrote? But that's not all! He allows a crafty Satan creature, with his band of demons, to trick people into rejecting the story he wrote about the earth which he is deliberately deceiving people with?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Obliquinaut, none of my business, but are you a scientist? if so, what is your area of expertise?

If not, what is your area of expertise?

I am an IP Analyst

 

[HitchSlap]

Because raisin bread is good. And God makes good things.

(I can't believe that someone would have to explain simple theology on here)

That must mean the devil makes fruitcakes?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not what I said. If anything you are accusing God of being a liar.

Hate to come out in defense of AV's position but I think it is pretty well crafted. He is saying that God is not lying, but rather creating something that is truly in all ways as old as it looks, just created in an instant.

It is reasonable to look at that and say "Well that seems dishonest", but if God is creating something that is exactly as it appears to be but didn't take as long to make it (a miracle in the extreme) it would not be lying per se.

The best comparison would be to suggest that God could miraculously make a lie that is true. Presumably God would be capable of this, but again the question arises as to "why".

That is where the real crux of the question over "honesty" lies.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That must mean the devil makes fruitcakes?

Yes. And beans.

 

[Colter]

Maybe the ark was made out of raisin bread? Since was have full liberty to appeal to miracles when our story isn't working?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hate to come out in defense of AV's position but I think it is pretty well crafted. He is saying that God is not lying, but rather creating something that is truly in all ways as old as it looks, just created in an instant.

The problem is that there is no reason for the Earth to tell a story. And that story that the Earth tells runs counter to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis is literally true, but God made it look like it wasn't then he would be dishonest. The world could have been created with mature life. With a total lack of fossils, with oil that came with a signature that tells us that it was formed in the Earth rather from plants. The oil could be found in structural traps instead of being found in layers associated with particular fossils, which indicate a particular time.

It is reasonable to look at that and say "Well that seems dishonest", but if God is creating something that is exactly as it appears to be but didn't take as long to make it (a miracle in the extreme) it would not be lying per se.

Since there are countless stories that could be told with the geology of the Earth, but a particular one that told us Genesis is wrong it would be. Try that with an art artifact sometime and see if you are not accused and convicted of lying, counterfeiting is a form of lying.

The best comparison would be to suggest that God could miraculously make a lie that is true. Presumably God would be capable of this, but again the question arises as to "why".

That is where the real crux of the question over "honesty" lies.

Serious theists tend to oppose Last Thursdayism because it involves a dishonest creator:
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

I pointed out a massive error in your reasoning.

That I'm Genghis Khan?

 

[Obliquinaut]

The problem is that there is no reason for the Earth to tell a story. And that story that the Earth tells runs counter to a literal interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis is literally true, but God made it look like it wasn't then he would be dishonest. The world could have been created with mature life. With a total lack of fossils, with oil that came with a signature that tells us that it was formed in the Earth rather from plants. The oil could be found in structural traps instead of being found in layers associated with particular fossils, which indicate a particular time.



Since there are countless stories that could be told with the geology of the Earth, but a particular one that told us Genesis is wrong it would be. Try that with an art artifact sometime and see if you are not accused and convicted of lying, counterfeiting is a form of lying.



Serious theists tend to oppose Last Thursdayism because it involves a dishonest creator:
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

Don't get me wrong, I understand the idea that this makes for a "dishonest creator", but as constructed by AV it becomes more a rhetorical challenge. This doesn't alter the way it actually appears, but when playing this particular game the argument as structured means God isn't being dishonest in terms of the creation. Perhaps in terms of the motive, but that is not the point of the rhetorical construct AV has introduced.

It is actually kind of a clever gambit, but in the end the only reason to come up with this particular hypothesis is if one REQUIRES Genesis to be Literal and REQUIRES God not be dishonest. With that in mind this is about the only way to construct the argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

So God created the earth to look old and to look as if life evolved?

He didn't create the earth just to look old.

He created the earth old.

The earth looks old because the earth is old.

He made the earth to appear in contrast to the book which the holy men claim he wrote?

You mean in contrast to this?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Interesting that you're calling them "holy men" now. Very interesting indeed.

In a few posts, they'll be back to "ignorant, bronze age, goat-herding, desert nomads," won't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that there is no reason for the Earth to tell a story. And that story that the Earth tells runs counter to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

If it is the earth (landmass) that's confusing you, then back up in Genesis 1 to a verse before God created the land and go from there.

 

[Colter]

He didn't create the earth just to look old.

He created the earth old.

The earth looks old because the earth is old.
You mean in contrast to this?

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Interesting that you're calling them "holy men" now. Very interesting indeed.

In a few posts, they'll be back to "ignorant, bronze age, goat-herding, desert nomads," won't they?

You misunderstood, I didn't call the crooked preachers who rewrote Israelite history "Bronze Age, goat-herding, desert nomads", I was talking about the people who put their faith in their exaggerated writings. The men who hid behind their own exaggerated history in order to reject Jesus were just as crooked as today's child abusing holy men of the church. But this s just to difficult for Biblevworshipers to face so we witness the sad spectacke of bending reality to fit the erroneous narratives.

 

[HitchSlap]

That I'm Genghis Khan?

Maybe?

1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan - Gene Expression

 

[AV1611VET]

You misunderstood, I didn't call the crooked preachers who rewrote Israelite history "Bronze Age, goat-herding, desert nomads", I was talking about the people who put their faith in their exaggerated writings.

Genesis 1 was written by Adam, and it was written in Jacobean English, which existed up until the time it was obsoleted at the tower of Babel.

This means Genesis isn't 'Israelite history.'

 

[HitchSlap]

If it is the earth (landmass) that's confusing you, then back up in Genesis 1 to a verse before God created the land and go from there.

Not confusing to us, but a misunderstanding on your part.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe?

1 in 200 men direct descendants of Genghis Khan - Gene Expression

My wife has the Star of Mongolia on her lower spine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not confusing to us, but a misunderstanding on your part.

Uh-huh.

And I'm 1 in 200 men.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Genesis 1 was written by Adam, and it was written in Jacobean English, which existed up until the time it was obsoleted at the tower of Babel.

This means Genesis isn't 'Israelite history.'

That sounds pretty miraculous! Why did it take humans so long to re-discover Jacobean English? And why would the Secretaries working under the aegis of King James rely on the non-English (Greek and Hebrew) texts available to write the KJV?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That I'm Genghis Khan?

According to you you are. I lost count on how many times you made that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is the earth (landmass) that's confusing you, then back up in Genesis 1 to a verse before God created the land and go from there.

I am not the confused one here.

It is an error in Christianity to try to read Genesis literally. You end up saying all sorts of bad things about God in doing so.