From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 10:55:17 EDT
Walter Hicks wrote:
> I start by
> talking about a simulation that I make to test out
> certain systems. I only do this major background
> ONCE. In fact, the background is simply that -- a
> background. Following that I use that background
> to study various systems. The same background is
> literally used thousands of times, while different
> system variations are examined. At no time is the
> background a lie. Just because I use it in situ,
> instead of creating it from scratch each time,
> does not make it any less real or make me, the
> Programmer, a lair. For God to use the universe as
> His background does not cause Him to be liar
> either.
>
At some level, I can accept your argument... a sort of
"Matrix" argument.
And perhaps lying _is_ too a strong a statement.
Depending on the reason for this "simulation" (such as
building the earth to find out the answer to "life truth
and everything" only to have the Vogons finally manage
to destroy the whole thing just before the calculation is
finished), well, maybe God is just a practical joker. Is
there a holy practical joke? Anyway, it wouldn't take
much for God to outwit any of us. Sort of like dropping
a bomb in a barrel of fish or a turkey shoot.
But, even given that this is the case, for YEC folk to cast
aspersions on other Christians who chose to think
differently is most assuredly out of order. If God left no
foothold on which we can distinguish these cases ---
not even a blip in the red shift, a chink in the stratigraphy,
a divot in the distribution of radioactive materials, in short,
a seamless transition --- then neither are we wrong to
infer that the world is billions of years old.
And this is not like the physicists having to admit that
the theologians were right after all. The big bang has
mountains of evidence to back it up. So no one can seriously
debate whether the universe had some sort of beginning,
the main debate between maximal naturalists and ourselves
is the "who" question (a question of "sovereignty" as Howard
has called it).
If people want to believe that, I surely cannot agree with
them on that point, but maybe there are some other things
I can find in common with them that I can talk about.
By Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 10:55:48 EDT