The Glade 4.0

If it's not an appeal to consequences (he's implying that it can't be true for that reason, even though he's not outright saying it), it's utterly irrelevant. It's also bullshit. Why exactly would God be obligated to reveal to us the truth of His works?



Except that it doesn't... because He told us exactly what happened in His book, in that case. It's just people looking for an excuse to tell God he's bad. You regularly reject morality as a meaningful concept, so moral condemnations of God from you are.. not very meaningful.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

A book that appears, based on the highest possible authority -- the observation of the universe around you -- to be complete fiction.

It isn't about MY morality. If young earth creationism is true, then god is indisputably dishonest and cruel - and this is evil by biblical morality.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The is the way it presently appears, that the book in question is allegorical; it does not appear to be "fictional" at all. OPbservation, however, is not an "authority" at all. It's observation. Just because things appear a certain way doesn't mean that they are. If you were guarding a building and I came in with a backpack I claimed had a gun in it and you searched the bag but did not find the gun because it was in a hidden pocket, I would not have lied, and your observation would not change the fact that the gun existed.



Except that he's neither dishonest nor cruel. There's no cruelty whatsoever, and He explicitly told us the correct answer in the book. If we then insist on our observations over what He said.. it's not Him being dishonest, it's us being obstinate.

On the surface, this appears to be an argument for Creationism, but in fact it's just easier to resolve by pointing out the allegorical possibility, which obviates any need for dispute, and neatly avoids the ambiguities of the description, as well as the fact that it is clearly a brief description of what happened to set the stage for the important stuff, not a step-by-step guide to the universe's beginnings.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We're not talking about people who allow for Genesis being allegorical. We're talking about Young Earth Creationists. And if the book they insist is absolutely the word of god, then either (A) God is a liar (because he intentionally deceived humankind by making the universe look older than it is) or (B) the book is inaccurate (because the universe is older than Genesis says) - meaning either that God is still a liar, or else the book does not represent God's word.

The option you choose - (C) Genesis is allegorical - solves most of this, but it is not an option here, we're talking about young earth creationism. Young earth creationism with the doctrine of a loving god is, therefore, complete fiction, because it is self contradictory. You cannot have both a 6000 year old earth AND the god described in the bible. Your beliefs may not encounter this problem, but YEC lacks self-consistency. While an omnipotent god surely could design a universe intentionally to deceive humankind, that god would be an *******, far from a "god of love."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Under the NEC ideas, God did not deceive us at all; He explicitly told us how old the earth is. The problem is that you're trying to criticize the NEC viewpoints with the assumption that observational evidence is all that matters, because it's what matters to you. It isn't to them. To them, they've been given the answer so alternate evidence from observation is irrelevant and has so has some alternate explanation - test of faith being the most obvious. That might seem cruel TO YOU because of its implications for someone like you who is utterly dependent on observation.. but God can do that, and since there is no objective morality God can be held to... if He says its good then it is.

The dirty secret of course is that most fundamentalits really haven't thought this all the way through. Who defines the standard of good God answers to? What makes Him good? I don't know, and neither do the fundamentalists - but I do know it's not any human. If God says He is good, that's fine by me. He promises eternal life and salvation. What have you got? I don't happen to think God is quite so parsimonious with knowledge of good and evil, but I think that tree was an allegory in the first place.


I keep bringing up the allegorical aspect for the benefit of those people here that think I'm on the Creationists' "side". In any case, you said what I just said - according to them, they've been given the answer. The problem for you is that you are looking at their perspective through your lens. If they're right, then THEY hadn't wen deceived- you have. They believed His World d. You had it available too. What's your excuse?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's the point! It's God who would need the excuse, not us. God gave us eyes with which to see, and a brain with which to think, and then gave us all the evidence to prove without any doubt that the universe is 13.8 billion years old! Then he gives us a book that says it's 6000 years old! If you take that book literally, he attempted to deceive us! The only people who would believe his book is literal are those who choose to forgo the use of the faculties God gave them in favor of one particular unverified book of fables.

Then they indicate that in order to please God, one must believe this book against all logic, reason, and observation.

Basically, God requires people be idiots to have his favor.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Human animals from about 2000 years ago who had far far less knowledge about everything than we do wrote down some stories, using the concept of the parable, in order to persuade everyone to follow some basic ethical(for the time) guidelines, for whatever actual purpose they had, whether noble or nefarious. The intent is largely irrelevant. The results to this day are what matter.

That's actually not it. YECs essentially come from the viewpoint that anything God does is good and right simply because God did it. God is not capable of immoral actions, he's omnibenevolent. As such, anything God does is benevolent by definition, and the lying and deception are not evil. God did it, so it can't be evil.

Except that their book says that it is impossible for God to attempt to deceive anyone.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The vast majority of the book is well corroborated, and definitely not fable, refering to known other historical events. In any case, no God did not attempt to deceive us under a literal interpretation, because He gave us the truth in the same book. When you try to trick someone you dont then also give them the right answer.


No, He just requires them not to be so self_centered. If the same God tells them "hey I gave you these senses, but here's what actually happened." why in the **** would you not believe it if you already believe in Him?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And where exactly would moral rules God has to follow come from? What you're saying is actually quite true. God is in a position to auhoritatively proclaim what is good and evil. Nonbelievers either reject morality in the first place until they want to condemn something religious is evil, making them hypocrites, or claim there is an objective universal (generally utilitarian) morality God must follow to be good. This avenue backs into the corner of making God answerable to human philosophy which itself can't even be universally agreed upon, making Him not God - not possessing the qualities of the God at issue.

The question of God's goodness or religious morailty is utterly immaterial to His existence, its truth, or the question of Creationism. Its mere appeal to motive. All this nonsense about YEC attitudes is just a distraction crom the issue of public behavior amounting to "they're more obnoxious because I dont believe them."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, it rates up there with Homer, Aesop, and Sturluson. Well, maybe not as highly as Sturluson. He was, at least, a decent historian. Let's not make ridiculous claims about the veracity of the bible in this discussion. It's a contradictory collection of mythologies and advocations for attrocity. There's a very good reason why religion is not taught in history classes. There is also an irony in advocating that the bible is "well-corroborated" in this discussion, as it's a great example of the very idiocy that this thread started complaining about.

Any public claims that religion has any logical or rational basis are automatically every bit as "annoying" as this thread was originally discussing. There is no logical basis, no real evidence for any of it. You can stand there screaming that the claims of the bible count as evidence, but I can claim that there's a divine mark on my *** that says otherwise, and it'd be just as credible than your stupid book.





That's circular reasoning, because you're referencing the problem to declare a solution. The bible declares the universe to be 6000 years old. However, the heavens themselves declare the universe to be 13.8 billion years old, in far more plain, obvious and clear terms than the bible does. Since God supposedly made the universe, that means God also told them, in far more weighty and authoritative terms than Genesis, that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old. If Genesis is the literal word of God intended to be taken literally, God either lied in the bible, or he lied in the creation of universe.

Either way, for a Young Earth Creationist, God is dishonest. Hey, I guess that makes God the "father of the lie," now. Who are they worshipping again?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Maybe God is just neutral? I don't think lying makes you evil.

More importantly, why do you give a crap?

First, what science has discovered about the universe is only a fraction of the truth. We cannot therefore know if that YEC are incorrect, or even they were deceived (this requires certain assumptions about the process, and logic which if we're talking about a higher power need not apply). You're applying your understanding to a problem and extrapolating that to areas you don't understand.

Second, futile. You're spending way too much energy trying to demonstrate that a belief system is wrong. If you had any experience with this, you'd realize the futility in such a quest. Why? Because God.

They are an identifiable subset within that group. Feminists are not a su bgrouping of females; it refers to a political belief. hence male feminists.

The problem being that the only thing ridiculous about it is your belief that it is so.

Also, you posted this:



http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2013/04/quiz.jpg[/quote]

Is that from a public school classroom? No? Then its irrelevant. Teaching of religion as science, inadvisie as it may be, is percectly acceptable in private schools, which are not part of that debate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If we're not going to make "ridiculous" claims about the veracity of the bible, then you can just stop talking now. Thats pretty much all you do on the topic. This paragraph is yet another exercise in you assuming your own conclusions and presenting them as fact. The bible isnt needed in history class because the major events around Israeli and Roman history are well documented elsewhere.

No you cant. Claims like this just reveal how little you really understand about concepts of evidence and credibity. I've explained why its evidence repeatedly how is evidence, and your replies just amount to more screaming and denigration of it because you're arguing from being mad that you can't just shout it down. You just went right back to the same question begging you always do.




Except He didn't, I explained why, and you are not using the concept of circular reasoning correctly. In fact, its your argument that is circular. You are claiming that under this approach there is a delta between the bible and observation because God lied which we know because there is a delta. I pointed out how it is explained by something other than lying, and that lying is not happening when one explicitly tells the truth. As for far more obvious... Regardless of what the right answer is, it took thousands of years to arrive at modern, still very incomplet ideas of the universe. Not obvious at all.

You, like Sagan, are just latching onto this idea of "God is dishonest" to put yourself above those that believe it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

[/quote]

Lets be clear here, just because a book has historical corroboration, doesn't make it factual. Various episodes of Star Trek or Quantum Leap involve time travel to the 20th century, in and weave in and out of events that are corroborated elsewhere. That doesn't make them any less of a work of fiction.
That said, the issue isn't with (most) of the Bible's account of factual events, but rather with their interpretation as things as acts of divine providence.

In an age where illness was attributed to a curse from God, it is easy to see how pork or shellfish might become 'proscribed by God' as the ancients viewed those consuming such products getting ill; since those two have a high incidence of food poisoning. One could even imagine someone's subconscious working through the patterns, and then recognizing them, only to have it come out in their dreams; suddenly they've been warned by God to avoid such things.

Works explicitly produced as a work of fiction are necessarily fiction. That doesn't mean one can simply claim a work is fiction ebcuase one wants it to be fiction, then claim that it's discussion of historical events don't point to its non-fiction status just because explicitly fictional works can involve historical events as well.


Obviously. However, one cannot simply claim the entire thing is nothing but fable and myth; it obviously is not. That leaves us only with the supernatural part, and rejecting them just because they're supernatural is, depending how it's done either question-begging or a form of special pleading.



Possibly. God might also have put it in their dreams.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Agreed.
BUT. Because historical corroboration does not logically imply factuality, you cannot use the claim that something is 'historically corroborated' as proof of the factual nature of the whole of narrative.

It's a good thing no one is doing that then. I'm replying to statements that imply the entire book is known to be fictional, which is not remotely the case. There's really no need for you to even point this out, no one was confused about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Wait... the Bible isn't fiction?

Since when?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Several thousand years or so.

Good one. Next you'll be telling me that there actually *is* a Hogwarts.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, that's from Harry Potter. Fiction.

So there's not a Hogwarts but a real person actually came back from the dead after being brutally murdered by the government, and a 900 year old dude built a boat and put 2 of every living creature on it to ride out a flood because the dude in charge wanted a do-over?

Huh. Yeah, the Bible is non-fiction. Sure.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!