Re: Apparent Age: Rethinking Creatio ex Nihilo

More comments below:
>
> Aren't you referring to something very like causal zero-time? It's already
> included in the domino analogy (and the law of apparent age). That said, I
> don't think the suggestion of changing colour is particularly clear for
> this
> analogy (compared to the illustration of changing spacing between
> dominos).
> Just because the domino can't get any blacker doesn't mean the whole
> causal
> order couldn't continue -- there could be another domino, it just wouldn't
> be any blacker. This is because causal zero-time can only occur when the
> entire system is seen to collapse. Colour isn't an attribute which forces
> an
> end to the row like domino spacing.
>
Perhaps the colour analogy isn't the best... but I was having trouble with
your spacing one also. I was searching for something analogous to (for
example) density of matter in the [expanding] universe, tracing it back to a
beginning of infinite density. It would seem difficult (impossible?) to
trace density further back than infinite... that would seem meaningless...
but I suspect there is a better analogy possible in any case.

>
>> ...It implies a history that never happened.
>
> But why does it imply the reality of that history? Because that's the
> usual
> course of things -- physical cause and effect. But this simply does not
> apply to cases of miraculous creation. Say you're in the Garden of Eden at
> creation point and you cut open a tree. You look inside at the tree rings.
> You know these rings don't mean the tree actually grew -- why? Because you
> know the tree was just created -- the rings and all the signs of age are
> simply part of the created tree. Now, let's say the rings show some very
> specific story. You can make out bad and good seasons, maybe a forest fire
> which looks as if it occurred eight years ago. Does the tree now suggest
> the
> reality of this story any more than before? Not at all! And for exactly
> the
> same reason -- you know it was just created and that any implied history
> is
> merely part of the created tree.
>
> Consider two pebbles. The first has no radioisotope decay (this isn't to
> say
> it doesn't have an implied history -- it just has a different implied
> history), the second has enough decay to point to 4.5 billion years of
> age.
> Does either pebble suggest the reality of their apparent age? Not if they
> were just created. There is no deceit in terms of implying the physical
> reality of a past that never was.
>
> You may validly ask "why would God include this detailed story? Why would
> he
> make it look like there was a forest fire? Why would he include 4.5
> billion
> years of decay?" These are good questions which I feel are answered by the
> presumption of general causal consistency. However, let's say there isn't
> any conceivable reason for God to include the forest fire evidence or
> radioisotope decay -- here I think we might call God a deceiver. But why?
> Not because the evidence suggests false history -- all creation beyond
> zero-time does this, and we know we can dismiss this apparent age because
> it
> is creation. No, the reason it would be deceptive is because God has
> created
> apparent age which defies what could be reasonably expected. If this was
> the
> case, when we looked at the evidence of forest fire, we might indeed doubt
> that it was a case of creation because creation just isn't expected to
> include forest fires.
>
> But I argue that the presumption of general consistency does furnish good
> reason to include such non-essential apparent age. It can be reasonably
> expected and so is not deceptive in any sense.
>
I don't know what else to say except that I am having serious trouble with
your argument. It just doesn't work for me... how about anyone else?

>
> I certainly agree that the physical world is as much a testimony to God as
> is Scripture. But this doesn't mean that everything should be obvious and
> straightforward. It was Lewis who wrote in Mere Christianity "Besides
> being
> complicated, reality, in my experience, is usually odd. It is not neat,
> not
> obvious, not what you expect. [...] Reality, in fact, is usually something
> you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe in
> Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered
> us
> just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were
> making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have
> made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have."
>
> I'm not pretending Lewis was advocating anything like total apparent age,
> but I think the point applies: we can't dismiss an idea simply because it
> doesn't seem like an intuitively clear way for God to do things.
>
I can certainly agree with this! We do have to be careful about hanging on
too closely to ideas just because they "seem" right... still, things have to
make sense on some levels, otherwise we might as well give up trying to
understand things. Perhaps your idea has merit and I just haven't "gotten
it" yet, so no harm in continuing the discussion...
...
>> ...for God, anything is possible. Why not
>> just actually create the history, all of it, from the beginning?
>
> I'm not trying to answer these sorts of questions here. I'm just asking IF
> God created a universe recently as per the usual YEC Genesis reading, what
> should we expect in the apparent age.
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> -Josh
>
OK...! But so far I am still thinking that recent creation scenarios with
"appearance of age" are not nearly as satisfying as simply letting the
appearance of age be actual age...
-Paul
>
>
Received on Tue May 23 04:22:50 2006