Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:54:04 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1943@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<07582b3e-1f6f-4d75-b9d2-a0945b24c82c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 7, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:27 am, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:03 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 6, 11:33 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-01-07, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 6, 4:43 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems perfectly rational to assume that the universe and everything
in it was created with Apparent age.
Well of course!  And everyone knows that it happened last Thursday!
So how's your sophomore year going so far?  Puked on a chick while you
were making out yet?
Nonsensical but I susupect you have great experience in
puking......your AA buddy probably get a little worn with it.
The reason you react so irrationally is that you realize that the
apparent age argument cannot be disproved.
Of course it can't be disproved.  That's why it's ludicrous to consider it.
Of course if say 10,000
years ago such was the case in order to get the universe to operate
properly it might well be reasonable to embue it with characteristics
and properties typical of great age.
Why not last Thursday?  Or why not consider that we are brains in vats?
        Mark- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because there are recent historical documents, memory of varifiable
events, and because we have a reliable record of God's acts and a
demonstrated example of His character which is consistent with truth
and not trickery.
But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with the
trickery of' "apparent" age.

Why would anyone resort to irrational imaginary explanations when the
written evidence is readily available for how all has began and
unfolded.
But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with the
trickery of' "apparent" age.

Unless you're an EVO and imagination is your stock in trade.
But it was you who just claimed that things could be created with the
trickery of' "apparent" age.

Creation of a man instead of a baby or a functioning sun instead of a
gas cloud is not trickery................turn on your brain button and
then come back.

This argument might apply to a few phenomena. You have mentioned two,
and a working soil, river systems, and oxygen atmosphere have been
mentioned by previous omphalists. But the theory founders on the host of
characteristics that are most clearly *not* necessary for a functioning
world. There is no point to light being created on its way to earth from
galaxies that are billions of light-years away, or to supernovae in
those galaxies, or to sedimentary rocks made from metamorphic rocks made
from other sedimentary rocks containing what appear to be river pebbles.
  Or of the distribution of radioisotopes in created igneous rocks. Etc.
  Most of what gives the appearance of age has no function in the world.

Now of course you can argue that we are not capable of discerning god's
purpose in creating all this. But in that case you have no argument --
anything could be anything. Omphalism is as sterile as its cousins, Last
Tuesdayism and solipsism.

Your idea that there is no point is an argument from ignorance and
personal incredulity. All mass and energy ever to be was present at
the creation and it had to be somewhere so some distribution was
necessary and the most consistent one was to rapidly populate the
universe with electromagnetic energy, massive bodies, etc. What other
preferref arrangement can evos suggest to be more likely and why ?

Why would there be any need to distribute mass and energy? Why
couldn't the creator have simply brought it into existence already in
place? Aren't you the one who argues in favour of the appearance of
age?

.