Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's about the weakest argument in existence.

"God can do anything."

Sure.

God could have made us men carry children inside of us for nine months, but He didn't.

Or He could have made grass orange, instead of green, but He didn't.

Or He could have made water dry, instead of wet, but He didn't.

Your idea creates a deceptive God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your idea creates a deceptive God.

I guarantee you, if God wanted to be deceptive, we wouldn't even suspect it.

He would just create a primordial atom, then just sit back and ...

... oh, wait!

 

[Fervent]

Your idea creates a deceptive God.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


Allowing people to self-deceive does not make God deceptive. It is people's own assumptions that lead to them convincing themselves based on a consensus of liars.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guarantee you, if God wanted to be deceptive, we wouldn't even suspect it.

He would just create a primordial atom, then just sit back and ...

... oh, wait!

Whereas God would create the world 6000 years ago, put in a tonne of history for animals and civilizations and people that didn't actually exist and then allow humans to study it all and come to the conclusion that the earth is several billion years old until someone with a MAD avatar comes along and says that's all wrong and his own personal reading of the Bible is fact!

How could we have all been so stupid?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


Allowing people to self-deceive does not make God deceptive. It is people's own assumptions that lead to them convincing themselves based on a consensus of liars.

So do you believe that God create the world 6000 years ago put placed embedded age and embedded history that is not true into His creation then?

 

[Fervent]

So do you believe that God create the world 6000 years ago put placed embedded age and embedded history that is not true into His creation then?

I have a fictitious sense of reality, when I'm performing Biblical exegesis I use a model that its histories are true accounts. When I am investigating on the base of empirical data, I use a scientific model. Which is reflective of reality, I don't really know. I just know that somehow, some way, the surest source of truth seems to come from the pages of the Bible. Mystery is perfectly ok with me.

 

[River Jordan]

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


Allowing people to self-deceive does not make God deceptive. It is people's own assumptions that lead to them convincing themselves based on a consensus of liars.

I don't think you're appreciating all the things God would have to do to make the universe seem old when it's really not, a lot of which would involve creating the impression that some things happened when they really didn't (like supernovae).

There's no reason for God to create lake varves with seasonal layers for seasons that never happened, or starlight showing cosmic events that never happened, or rocks with different types of parent/daughter elements all converging on the same ranges of dates.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have a fictitious sense of reality, when I'm performing Biblical exegesis I use a model that its histories are true accounts. When I am investigating on the base of empirical data, I use a scientific model. Which is reflective of reality, I don't really know. I just know that somehow, some way, the surest source of truth seems to come from the pages of the Bible. Mystery is perfectly ok with me.

But AV doesn't consider embedded age a mystery. He considers it a fact, both scientific and Biblical. And I don't consider embedded age a mystery, nor a fact of either science or the Bible. In fact, I consider it blasphemy.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think you're appreciating all the things God would have to do to make the universe seem old when it's really not, a lot of which would involve creating the impression that some things happened when they really didn't (like supernovae).

I know what God's word says, and I trust Him as authority on such questions. When I read the Bible there are verses such as:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

So what makes us think that we can construct the methods thaat God used to create the world from what we can see and touch? How do we determine such a statement is true?

There's no reason for God to create lake varves with seasonal layers for seasons that never happened, or starlight showing cosmic events that never happened, or rocks with different types of parent/daughter elements all converging on the same ranges of dates.

I'm not prone to speculate about the motives or intentions of God, I'm tethered to what is written in the Bible when I talk about Him.

 

[Fervent]

But AV doesn't consider embedded age a mystery. He considers it a fact, both scientific and Biblical. And I don't consider embedded age a mystery, nor a fact of either science or the Bible. In fact, I consider it blasphemy.

Yeah, certainly some people are going to take hypotheticals as dogmatically true. I don't consider embedded age a reasonable conclusion, and AV's attitude towards science seems to be to chuck the whole kettle so there's not much sense in arguing the scientific questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, certainly some people are going to take hypotheticals as dogmatically true. I don't consider embedded age a reasonable conclusion, and AV's attitude towards science seems to be to chuck the whole kettle so there's not much sense in arguing the scientific questions.

Which is why I asked him why God would create the world with embedded age.

 

[River Jordan]

I know what God's word says, and I trust Him as authority on such questions. When I read the Bible there are verses such as:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

I agree, but that has no bearing on God creating things to look very old when they're actually very young.

So what makes us think that we can construct the methods thaat God used to create the world from what we can see and touch? How do we determine such a statement is true?

Mostly because centuries of scientific work has shown that by studying and investigating we can develop a surprisingly consistent and comprehensive account for how a lot of things came to be.

The "embedded age" belief is nothing more than a non-Biblical scenario dreamed up in response to how the conclusions of science don't match up with some Christians' interpretation of scripture. So rather than reevaluate their interpretations, they make up "embedded age" out of whole cloth.

I'm not prone to speculate about the motives or intentions of God, I'm tethered to what is written in the Bible when I talk about Him.

Ok.

 

[Fervent]

Which is why I asked him why God would create the world with embedded age.

Do you expect him to provide a reasonable answer, even though he seems to have abandoned the use of reason altogether?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you expect him to provide a reasonable answer, even though he seems to have abandoned the use of reason altogether?

As I've said on another thread, I live in hope. I might end up being proven wrong, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Fervent]

I agree, but that has no bearing on God creating things to look very old when they're actually very young.

It seems to me it very much does.

Mostly because centuries of scientific work has shown that by studying and investigating we can develop a surprisingly consistent and comprehensive account for how a lot of things came to be.

The success of scientific models is explainable by the methods employed by science. Because science is a self-correcting process the theories that it proposes are bound to get better, but they're no closer to truth than they were at the start. They're just better and creating technologies. There is an element of survivorship bias(a sampling error) in looking at the "success" of science as demonstrating the truth of current theories. Circular justification doesn't really provide us with a foundation for accepting it as discovering truth. Especially when we can explain its success simply because it uses ostensive definitions to form limited hypotheticals to test and then weaves them into an overarching theory. It's a testament to the creativity of man, but it doesn't take us outside of the limited position we are in. All it does is describe the shadows dancing on the cave wall.

The "embedded age" belief is nothing more than a non-Biblical scenario dreamed up in response to how the conclusions of science don't match up with some Christians' interpretation of scripture. So rather than reevaluate their interpretations, they make up "embedded age" out of whole cloth.

Every model of reality ultimately comes down to human creativity, though I am prone to agree that an insistence on embedded age is an abandonment of reason entirely. But if it is somehow true, it doesn't make God deceptive. Nothing in His word tells us that we can move from the epistemic sewers we find ourselves in to an understanding of what is true about reality, and in some ways seems to deny that such a thing is possible.

Ok.

 

[Fervent]

As I've said on another thread, I live in hope. I might end up being proven wrong, but stranger things have happened.

As do I, all I have is a hope and a prayer. Which is faith. My suggestion is simply this, if someone has abandoned the use of reason then persuing them with reason isn't going to have an effect. It's just joining in on their lunacy. Arguing with embedded age creationism does nothing but give it an air of reasonability, some ideas are just better left ignored.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As do I, all I have is a hope and a prayer. Which is faith. My suggestion is simply this, if someone has abandoned the use of reason then persuing them with reason isn't going to have an effect. It's just joining in on their lunacy. Arguing with embedded age creationism does nothing but give it an air of reasonability, some ideas are just better left ignored.

True, but also aren't some ideas that are fundamentally wrong better off being challenged and shown to be wrong, rather than allowed to be aired as something reasonable and ignored?

 

[Fervent]

True, but also aren't some ideas that are fundamentally wrong better off being challenged and shown to be wrong, rather than allowed to be aired as something reasonable and ignored?

Time and season, it's reasonable to address why it isn't Biblical or scientific when talking to someone who believes that Christianity entails it and finds faith untenable for that reason. But no amount of argumentation is going to dissuade AV or anyone who is fully sold on such an idea that it isn't true. It is light that exposes darkness, and explanation of what is true that exposes lies.

 

[River Jordan]

It seems to me it very much does.

I don't see how.

The success of scientific models is explainable by the methods employed by science. Because science is a self-correcting process the theories that it proposes are bound to get better, but they're no closer to truth than they were at the start. They're just better and creating technologies. There is an element of survivorship bias(a sampling error) in looking at the "success" of science as demonstrating the truth of current theories. Circular justification doesn't really provide us with a foundation for accepting it as discovering truth. Especially when we can explain its success simply because it uses ostensive definitions to form limited hypotheticals to test and then weaves them into an overarching theory. It's a testament to the creativity of man, but it doesn't take us outside of the limited position we are in. All it does is describe the shadows dancing on the cave wall.

Then why does it work and produce tangible results? If it's all illusory as you seem to believe, then any method would produce equivalent results, with the scientific method being no better than random people just making things up.

You may believe that reality is really just "shadows on a cave wall", but I can't agree. I don't believe God creates misleading or false realities.

Every model of reality ultimately comes down to human creativity, though I am prone to agree that an insistence on embedded age is an abandonment of reason entirely. But if it is somehow true, it doesn't make God deceptive.

Yes it does.

Nothing in His word tells us that we can move from the epistemic sewers we find ourselves in to an understanding of what is true about reality, and in some ways seems to deny that such a thing is possible.

Nothing in scripture tells us that we can use rockets to send robots to other planets either. So "it isn't in the Bible" doesn't mean we can't therefore do it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Time and season, it's reasonable to address why it isn't Biblical or scientific when talking to someone who believes that Christianity entails it and finds faith untenable for that reason. But no amount of argumentation is going to dissuade AV or anyone who is fully sold on such an idea that it isn't true. It is light that exposes darkness, and explanation of what is true that exposes lies.

Oh, I know that I'm not going to dissuade AV from embedded age, along with those who follow it. I don't envision I ever will (and I'd be worried if I did, truth be told). But countering his claims does allow others to see where AV et al are wrong and to allow them to see both sides of the argument.

I do get what you're saying though.