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

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:37:28 -0800, Evopeach wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:15 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:18:28 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<062af85a-226b-4836-aa1f-510edbdca...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :





On Jan 10, 7:29 am, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:20:27 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<3564632a-8d1d-40e7-a56c-8a25ddbb6...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jan 9, 11:37 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:36:00 -0800, Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:34 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:54:04 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<07582b3e-1f6f-4d75-b9d2-
a0945b24c...@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?

Because there are recent historical documents, memory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?

The distribution of mass energy is not arbitrary

The will of the creator isn't arbitrary?  Does that mean the
creator is restricted in what it can do?

nor random it follows
laws that determine the operation there of and enables life to
be extant.

Sounds like an evil atheistic materialistic evolutionary opinion
to me. Just take a handful of laws and some matter & energy and
you just might end up with life.  Well done -- I think you're
coming around.

But you did fail to answer the questions.  Try again:

"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?"

PLease take a year of deep thought, confer with other evos, repair
to secret intellects outside the evo community and then maybe you
can tell me how  "already IN PLACE"  differs from a "DISTRIBUTION".
  What a moron.

When are you going to take your own advice? It amazes me that you
can't see the contradictions in your own claims. Compare this claim:

     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.

with this one:

     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.

These are two completely different assertions. It should be obvious
that the phrase "distribution was necessary" implies the passage of
time, which would be reflected as "age". So why would distribution
be necessary if the creator could simply create the universe with
the appearance that distribution had taken place (AKA "the
appearance of age")?

You're really reaching. Distribute is a verb...distribution is a
noun......

However, "distribution" can describe an activity. You also used the
term "rapidly", so it didn't seem unreasonable to think that you were
making some kind of association between "distribution" and "rapidly".
Whatever the case, the statements are still contradictory.

Noting that there was a logical,necessary and sufficient physical
distribution says moting about how long it took to effect it. In this
case one day.

Science disagrees.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One thing is for sure, no can prove it was not one day.

Or that you're not a brain in a vat. Funny thing, trying to prove a
negative outside of mathematics.

.