wallyshoes wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > wallyshoes wrote:
> > ...............
> > > AND HEAR THIS WELL: Nobody on this list has any good scientific (non
> > > philosophical) answer to those Christians who think that the earth was created
> > > less than 10,000 years ago with the history intact. There is absolutely no way
> > > to scientifically refute this (IMO) ---- but hostile criticism still spews
> > > forth.
> > Nobody has a good scientific answer to the claim that God created the world 15
> > minutes ago with all memories &c. Nobody has a good scientific answer to the claim that
> > I'm a brain in a vat & my body & all the rest of you are figments of my imagination.
> > But nobody with any sense for reality takes such notions seriously. Much less should
> > any Christian who believes that God created a real world that was "very good" entertain
> > such notions.
>
> George, your debatemanship is always good but the above argument is specious at best. The
> proposed view happens to be one that some YEC Christians believe. It comes from 2 simple
> "facts".
>
> 1.) Current science works
>
> 2.) The Bible seems to indicate a young earth when read at "face value".
>
> So if God authored both of these, then what is proposed is one logical conclusion. It is not
> the only one, but at least a logical one. It has nothing to do with hypothetical brains in
> a vat (etc.) and you clearly understand that, George.
It isn't that clear cut. Read what I said at the end. Acceptance of apparent
age in itself doesn't imply brain in a vat arguments or other solipsisms but once you
open up the radical "world isn't what it seems" box you have no clear reason for
stopping further erosion of a critical realism.
What's at issue isn't just logic but theo-logic: What does the apparent age
idea say about the character of God and the value of creation?
Furthermore, Christians as far back as Augustine have said that if there are
several ways to interpret a passage of scripture & one doesn't agree with our
observation of the world then we ought to consider the others. Once you accept
"apparent age" you can accept "apparent anything" in order to maintain a particular type
of interpretation against any putative counter-evidence.
& in practice "apparent age" is always a fall-back position. YECs present
supposed scientific evidence for a young earth & when it's found spurious say "Well, God
made it look old." It's like the "I didn't kill him - & besides he had it coming"
defence.
There is no need for you to continue to repeat that science itself can't
disprove apparent age - whether that age is 6000 years or 15 minutes. Bertrand Russell
pointed that out 100 years ago & we all know it. But unlike Russell we also need to
look at theological implications.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sun Feb 1 23:26:14 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 23:26:15 EST