Subject: Re: Creationism (was Re: "With All That You Acquire, Acquire
Understanding")
Date: 3 Feb 2000 23:33:51 GMT
From:  (Ken Smith)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

 (St.Athanasius) writes:

>Hi Ken,

>>I can't speak for other Christians, but I don't believe that God
>>deliberately sets out to mislead people who honestly look at the
>>universe.

>I do not accept it as misleading at all. The history of mankind is
>recorded for man to know, your assumption is based only on the belief
>that long age data is correct, in my opinion it is you that is being
>misleading, based on God's revelation about Himself and mankind!!!


>>Thus he would *not* (IMHO) create something (light) which, to all
>>intents and purposes, seems to come from something (a star) which
>>does not exist.

>I said simultaneously created both. You have dodged whether your
>concept of God is 'able' to do this?????

My God is not able to do anything which would mislead "humble seekers
after truth", to quote Lord Gifford's will in which he set up the
Gifford Lectures.
Specifically, my God is not able to create light which *appears* to be
coming from a star, but actually does not.

>>You - or, more likely the source from whioch you got your information
>>- have misunderstood the prediction of general relativity, commonly
>>known as the "big bang".
>>Both space and time *started* at the original singularity.
>>It simply does not make sense to talk about things starting at a
>>single point in space, whene there was no space.
>>Augustine wrote around AD 400 that the universe was creatd with time,
>>not in time.
>>Modern cosmology says the same thing.

>Indeed he also taught that time is a concept that only exists in our
>memories, If you are proposing a created universe other than at a
>single point then your assumption can add support to my suggestions.
>My reference was to the assumptions of the 'expanding' universe, you
>have not addressed this. Can God create the Universe in a state of
>expansion?

My God is not able to create a universe which *appears* to be in a
state of expansion from a singularity, but was actually created to
give the misleading impression that it was.

>>Have you heard of "last Thursdayism"?  Some people insist that it
>>should really be "last Wednesdayism".
>>This is the idea that God created the universe, as a running concern,
>>including us with al;l our memories, all the libraries with books, all
>>the biblical manuscripts in their more or less tattered state, ... at
>>around 9:23 am last Thursday.
>>There are, of course, the heretics who insist that it was last
>>Wednesday, not Thursday.
>>There is no scientific evidence which can be brought against this
>>idea.

>How very interesting, no I had not heard of it and I find it amusing.
>As to no scientific evidence, I would have thought last Monday's paper
>would have helped, or our memories of it, or the people who would have
>testified to last Mondays existence. Hey, this sounds pretty much like
>how the creation has been confirmed by the testimony of God through
>people. "By the mouth of two or three........."

Your memories of last Monday's newspaper were part of what was created
last Thursday (or Wednesday, for heretics).

>I agree last Thursday cannot be repeated and observed and as such may
>be disqualified as provable from a scientific basis. The observation
>of this truth, in my mind in no way brings scorn again the idea that
>God created time and space only a short period ago.

Not scientific scorn.  As I have pointed out, there is no scientific
evidence which could be brought against it.
It's the major theological problem of God misleading people.

>>The same applies to any suggestion that the universe does not provide
>>us with accurate information about its history and workings.

>I believe it does, however, I also believe that men must needs
>'assume' a number of things that are unknown. It is in those areas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that the danger lies of denying God's role in Creation.
>>
>>Once again, my God is incapable of misleading people who honestly look
>>at his handiwork.

>Indeed, I doubt whether anyones "God" would set out to purposely
>mislead anyone, rather He has explained it all so that even children
>can understand it, It takes men who speak in gibberish (Scientific
>speak) and lots of unknown assumptions to come up with an opposing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>view. I repeat that I do not think that it is God who is being
>untruthful to the known record or mankind.

I am not clear about just what you mean by "unknown" in these two
places.
If you simply mean that some things are accepted without proof, you
are correct - and all scientists would agree with you.
All proofs rely on some assumptions.
This is clearest in mathematics, where the assumptions are carefully
set out as axioms or rules of reasoning.
But these are assumptions.
Even something as basic as non-contradiction is an assumption.
It is impossible to show, for example, that something can be red and
not-red at the same time, unless you have included non-contradiction
as one of your rules of reasoning.

Could you provide some examples of what you regard as "unknown
assumptions", to clarify this thread?

>Peace and grace.
>Greg Scully.
>St. Athanasius Web Page:     http://www.mpx..com.au/~saintathanasius/index.html
>Orthodox Discussion Board:   http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb898180
>Email for the Mission:       

Ken Smith