Why do YECists have such a low opinion of God?

[AV1611VET]

so god must resort to circular logic instead? i don't get it.

I don't get it, either --- what do you mean by that?

 

[Vene]

Please don't try to witness me, I have my own holy book. That isn't the only reason I reject Christianity, it was just one.

I still don't understand how something can be created ex nihilo, but with embedded age. If it came from something else, fine, the atoms existed beforehand and it will retain some of the previous properties. But to come out of nothing with age is creation with a false history. It's pure doublethink. You are holding two conflicting statements in your head with the same validity.

 

[AV1611VET]

I still don't understand how something can be created ex nihilo, but with embedded age. If it came from something else, fine, the atoms existed beforehand and it will retain some of the previous properties. But to come out of nothing with age is creation with a false history. It's pure doublethink. You are holding two conflicting statements in your head with the same validity.

I started a thread, in which I showed that ex nihilo creation cannot be proven by anyone (sorta).

Click Here
​

Don't assume it didn't happen because it can't be proven.

 

[Vene]

And we've definitely crossed the line into fantasy now.

I claim that the universe was created by the goddess Eris as a result of indigestion. Black holes are where she divided by zero. Evolution didn't happen, she just got bored and decided to play with the genes of living things. Volcanoes erupt when she gets mad. When it rains it's because she's having her period (a chaotic goddess can have it whenever she feels like it). She wrote all religious texts as a way to confuse us and laugh as we fight each other over it.

You don't believe this? Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I started a thread, in which I showed that ex nihilo creation cannot be proven by anyone (sorta).

Click Here​

Don't assume it didn't happen because it can't be proven.

So it's meaningless drivel -- we knew that already.

 

[AV1611VET]

And we've definitely crossed the line into fantasy now.

I claim that the universe was created by the goddess Eris as a result of indigestion. Black holes are where she divided by zero. Evolution didn't happen, she just got bored and decided to play with the genes of living things. Volcanoes erupt when she gets mad. When it rains it's because she's having her period (a chaotic goddess can have it whenever she feels like it). She wrote all religious texts as a way to confuse us and laugh as we fight each other over it.

You don't believe this? Just because there isn't proof doesn't mean it isn't true.

That's not a problem, Vene --- go ahead and make that claim.

And in 6100 years from now, and against all odds to delete your passage, if it is still there, and supported by an entire nation that grew up relying on your words, and was somehow preserved against superpower after superpower after superpower --- I might give it some thought.

How does that sound?

 

[Vene]

That's not a problem, Vene --- go ahead and make that claim.

And in 6100 years from now, and against all odds to delete your passage, if it is still there, and supported by an entire nation that grew up relying on your words, and was somehow preserved against superpower after superpower after superpower --- I might give it some thought.

How does that sound?

So, because a lot of people believe something that makes it true? It's not hard to deceive people, look at Scientology.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, because a lot of people believe something that makes it true?

No --- but don't you think the Bible walked it's talk in the Old Testament?

Prophecy after prophecy after prophecy given and fulfilled with 100% accuracy.

This is more than just strength-in-numbers support; this is divinity -in-action, wouldn't you say?

It's not hard to deceive people, look at Scientology.

That is what is so dangerous about religion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's not a problem, Vene --- go ahead and make that claim.

And in 6100 years from now, and against all odds to delete your passage, if it is still there, and supported by an entire nation that grew up relying on your words, and was somehow preserved against superpower after superpower after superpower --- I might give it some thought.

How does that sound?

Sounds like you give mob mentality all the credit and respect you claim to give God.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No --- but don't you think the Bible walked it's talk in the Old Testament?

Not particularly.

Prophecy after prophecy after prophecy given and fulfilled with 100% accuracy.

Try .0003% accuracy, actually. "What happens in this book get fulfilled in that book" doesn't count.

This is more than just strength-in-numbers support; this is divinity -in-action, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't -- I'd call it foreshadowing -- a common enough literary trick.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

For two reasons:

1. It doesn't contradict the Scriptures.
2. I give scientists the benefit of a doubt.

If the Bible says that we have only been here for 6100 years, and science says this earth is 4.57 billion years old, I see no contradiction between science and the Scriptures; so long as I make the distinction between existential years and physical years.

The mistake "scientists" are making, in my opinion, is that they look at an object, and see that it is 4.57 billion years old, and assume it has 4.57 billion years of history in it.

Zircon, I believe, is the oldest known substance on the earth.

If Zircon has gone around the sun with the earth 4.57 billion times, why isn't everything else 4.57 billion years old?

I conclude therefore, that "scientists" are confusing age with history, but God didn't.

You believe that scientists are wrong because the Bible is complete and infallible, but in order to maintain that infallibility, you have to add a complicated story to explain a mistake.

You have no choice now, AV - either your literal reading is wrong because the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, or it's young and God is a deceiver for making it look older and not telling us.

 

[AV1611VET]

You believe that scientists are wrong because the Bible is complete and infallible, but in order to maintain that infallibility, you have to add a complicated story to explain a mistake.

I believe that scientists are wrong only - and I say only - in areas where they contradict the Bible.

You have no choice now, AV - either your literal reading is wrong because the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, or it's young and God is a deceiver for making it look older and not telling us.

I will agree with you that the earth really is 4.57 billion years old, but I will not agree that God is a deceiver for making it that old*, in light of the fact that He documented what He did, when He did it, and the order that He did it in.

*Please note I said "making it that old" --- not "making it look that old."

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I believe that scientists are wrong only - and I say only - in areas where the Bible is contradicted.

Yes, but you believe so only because you think that the Bible is an infallible standard - despite the fact that you actually have to add stories to it in order to make it infallible.

I will agree with you that the earth really is 4.57 billion years old, but I will not agree that God is a deceiver for making it that old*, in light of the fact that He documented what He did, when He did it, and the order that He did it in.

*Please note I said "making it that old" --- not "making it look that old."

Were we not in agreement that the process of "making it old" is not documented anywhere in the Bible and is, in fact, your own personal hypothesis?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but you believe so only because you think that the Bible is an infallible standard - despite the fact that you actually have to add stories to it in order to make it infallible.

The Bible is known as "The Infallible Word of God."

And I don't believe I "add" anything in order to make it infallible.

Were we not in agreement that the process of "making it old" is not documented anywhere in the Bible and is, in fact, your own personal hypothesis?

I believe I showed you the simple mathematical way of determining for yourself how much age was embedded.

"Embedded age" is simply the term (not a story) we use to describe it.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The Bible is known as "The Infallible Word of God."

And I don't believe I "add" anything in order to make it infallible.

You invented the concept of embedded age to keep your belief in the earth's age of 6100 years without making God a deceiver.

I believe I showed you the simple mathematical way of determining for yourself how much age was embedded.

"Embedded age" is simply the term (not a story) we use to describe it.

Is the process of embedding age documented in the Bible?

 

[Vene]

Is the process of embedding age documented in the Bible?

Hmm, this seems familiar for some reason. I wonder why that is.

AV, why do you insert ideas into your infailable book as a part of your faith? I thought that the Holy Bible didn't make mistakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

You invented the concept of embedded age to keep your belief in the earth's age of 6100 years without making God a deceiver.

"I" invented it?

I thought Omphalos and Last Thursdayism use it, too?

Two things I've been accused of being.

Is the process of embedding age documented in the Bible?

No --- it is not a process --- it is ex nihilo - (instantaneous).

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm, this seems familiar for some reason. I wonder why that is.

AV, why do you insert ideas into your infailable book as a part of your faith? I thought that the Holy Bible didn't make mistakes.

Do "rapture" and "trinity" also qualify as "inserted ideas," Vene?

 

[Vene]

If you can find passages that support it in the Bible, then fine, it's a part of Christianity. If not, then I don't see why it belongs as a part of your faith.

Actually as I don't accept the Bible to be the word of god I don't consider any of it to be meaningful, you can believe whatever you want to. But don't expect it to be accepted by others without defending it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But don't expect it to be accepted by others without defending it.

That's why I'm here ---