God made the universe look old so it would look pretty

[Voter]

Naturalism obviously. Haven't thought much about the others.

[Stevil]

Naturalism obviously. Haven't thought much about the others.

"The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law."

OK, so it seems the Christian god can work within the natural laws (which is the usual case) in which case we wouldn't be able to tell the difference and one could argue that since the natural laws are in place then there is no need for a god because these laws will dictate the course of events regardless.

But it also seems that the Christian god can operate outside these laws. This is potentially what could be used to prove the existence of the Christian god. If scientist see discrepencies and non conformance to these well defined, proven laws then these could show the work of the Christian god potentially, unless it was maybe a different god or something else supernatural that caused it.

But of course the Christian god knowing the future could always ensure efforts are done in a manner whereby people will never look for them, in this way god could remain hidden.

Also scientists looking at these discrepencies and non conformance will assume the model depicting the natural laws is incorrect and will look to redefine the model.

This is most likely an entirely unprovable theory. But a valid theory none the less for those who do not expect theories to be proveable.

[TheWilliam]

God wanted stars to be in the sky. He wanted so desperately for us to see them that at the day of creation he deliberately made the universe look billions of years old so Adam and Eve could see the stars in the sky. (Warning it's AnswersInGenesis. If ou prefer there's this Wikipedia link)

Every time I hear such an absurd excuse like this I think that surely it must weaken the faith of other Creationists. Saying "God Works in Mysterious Ways" actually seems vastly superior ridiculousness like this when it comes to convincing other Creationists. Do we have any ex-Creationists here that confirm this little theory of mine?  

my favorite when we were little teenage church kid robots.

whenever we sinned or whatever with a chick or even commented on a chick or something we'd say

"The lord knows what's in my heart"

it takes the bullshit to another level of which we're insinuating that we don't even have to repent anymore.

know the rules of the religion > knowingly break the rules > assume "god" knew we didn't really want to, and still go to heaven....

awesome.

[theclassicist]

I can remember being told in a bible study when i was aged 19 that the earth may have been constructed by God to look like it was millions of years old - at least, an omnipotent God could do that - kinda like your astronomical puzzler - however, freeing oneself from religion isnt about just disproving one lie which any intelligent person knows is controversial anyway-its about shaking off the whole set.
Christianity is something taught to you by people you trust, pillars of your family or church.  By definition you find these people wise. In addition, there are books on christian apologetics (ie christian theory) written by christians.  I read two of these written by christians with phd's'. (One was called 'Evidence that demands a verdict by josh mcdowell (or maybe Macdowell).  At the time i didnt know anyone with a phd, so i pretty much thought that evidence/theory of Josh's was trustworthy.  Like the 'great ape' in in the book 'the naked ape'-the one more senior than you and who must therefore be reliable.
These kind of people have also told me things like 'well, the baptist church doesnt say to people dont read anything that disagrees with christianity.  But in my experience, the bibles true, so I wouldnt feel the need to go to non-christian sources.'
I have also been told that there were so many holes in evolutionary theory, it couldnt be considered reliable scientific fact and was entirely questionable.  Just a theory full of holes.
The point is, the people who told me this stuff were people i trusted - what shook my belief more than anything else was seeing the diversity of thought - all christians seem to disagree on one matter or another, whether its astronomy, physics, palaentology, evolution, literary history, doctrinal, or whatever.  How can anyone say another person who holds a diffirent position about a central aspect of faith is in possession of the truth? How many versions of 'the truth' can there be?
One of the main things that convinced me christianity was true was when josh mcdowell 'proved' statistically that chritianity was true.   A few years later i read another book, (i think it was called 'Why Believe?', again written by educated christians-part of their book was spent refuting josh's methods in statistical analysis - so in a rather beautiful ironic twist the thing which made me think christianity was rational was itself blown out of the water by other christians.  Ridiculous, but true.

[Dretlin]

I can remember being told in a bible study when i was aged 19 that the earth may have been constructed by God to look like it was millions of years old - at least, an omnipotent God could do that - kinda like your astronomical puzzler - however, freeing oneself from religion isnt about just disproving one lie which any intelligent person knows is controversial anyway-its about shaking off the whole set.
Christianity is something taught to you by people you trust, pillars of your family or church.  By definition you find these people wise. In addition, there are books on christian apologetics (ie christian theory) written by christians.  I read two of these written by christians with phd's'. (One was called 'Evidence that demands a verdict by josh mcdowell (or maybe Macdowell).  At the time i didnt know anyone with a phd, so i pretty much thought that evidence/theory of Josh's was trustworthy.  Like the 'great ape' in in the book 'the naked ape'-the one more senior than you and who must therefore be reliable.
These kind of people have also told me things like 'well, the baptist church doesnt say to people dont read anything that disagrees with christianity.  But in my experience, the bibles true, so I wouldnt feel the need to go to non-christian sources.'
I have also been told that there were so many holes in evolutionary theory, it couldnt be considered reliable scientific fact and was entirely questionable.  Just a theory full of holes.
The point is, the people who told me this stuff were people i trusted - what shook my belief more than anything else was seeing the diversity of thought - all christians seem to disagree on one matter or another, whether its astronomy, physics, palaentology, evolution, literary history, doctrinal, or whatever.  How can anyone say another person who holds a diffirent position about a central aspect of faith is in possession of the truth? How many versions of 'the truth' can there be?
One of the main things that convinced me christianity was true was when josh mcdowell 'proved' statistically that chritianity was true.   A few years later i read another book, (i think it was called 'Why Believe?', again written by educated christians-part of their book was spent refuting josh's methods in statistical analysis - so in a rather beautiful ironic twist the thing which made me think christianity was rational was itself blown out of the water by other christians.  Ridiculous, but true.

Bloody hell mate, wit part of Glasgow have you been hanging around?

[theclassicist]

West End, mainly...

[Dretlin]

West End, mainly...

Thats the last place I would expect you to hear that.  

[theclassicist]

Well...not always in glasgow.  Ive seen this stuff all over the UK.  Basically when you get UK fundamentalists behind closed doors they can be every bit as extreme as the US excesses you can find on the net.  Happening in a house near you...

[Dretlin]

Happening in a house near you...

I felt distant from creationist views, in a physical sense, as most of the issues on HA are American issues - not Scottish ones. I do not know a great deal about creationism in Scotland, as incountering it was quite rare. Unless I was not looking hard enough.

[Davin]

Well...not always in glasgow.  Ive seen this stuff all over the UK.  Basically when you get UK fundamentalists behind closed doors they can be every bit as extreme as the US excesses you can find on the net.  Happening in a house near you...

It seems like they know it's crazy sounding and are at least too embarrassed be public about it. Where I am in the states, there are quite a few that seem to think that the embarrassment is more proof that they're right. I used all sorts of "seems like" qualifiers because I don't actually know, that's just my opinion.

[Bornagain]

I know I will not change your mind on how you believe but let me ask you a question? What makes you know for certain that there is no God? There are things that may support evolution but there are also things that point to special creation. The Bible does say that a day to God is like 1,000 years to us. Is that to say that the earth is Billions of years old? Don't know. The earth may be 6,000 years old or it may be billions of years old. Doesn't really matter. The Bible is not really a science book anyway. The Bible is more of a history book. I will ask a few more questions and then I will stop and let you respond. First: The Bible explains periods of time and catastrophic events, i.e. the flood, that have been confirmed by scientific studies. How is it that a book so old can correctly label the big world events but can't explain creation? The cultures and the people of the Bible are confirmed throughout historic and scientific studies. Jesus Himself is not questioned in His existence. The thing about Christians is we either believe all of the Bible or we believe none of it. History and your own science backs up many portions of the Bible. Creation just happens to be one that is not 100% decided by science because it can never be proven. How is it that certain parts of the Bible, that were inspired by the same God, can be proven right but the parts that can't are automatically considered fallacy?

[The Magic Pudding]

Congrats Bornagain, never a more deserving recipient have I met.

[Sophus]

I know I will not change your mind on how you believe but let me ask you a question? What makes you know for certain that there is no God?

I don't, if you're referring to a deistic one. The theistic Abrahamic one however, is thoroughly disproved. Prayer has no effect, Creation is false, he has no intervention in the universe, etc, etc. He's not even falsifiable.

There are things that may support evolution but there are also things that point to special creation.

Nope. There is not anything that points toward intelligent design. The evidence for evolution is copious.

The Bible does say that a day to God is like 1,000 years to us.

Where?

Is that to say that the earth is Billions of years old? Don't know. The earth may be 6,000 years old or it may be billions of years old. Doesn't really matter. The Bible is not really a science book anyway.

I disagree. Religion was man's first attempt to answer the questions science now answers. So while you're right that it's not science, it is attempting to answer questions only science can.

The Bible is more of a history book.

Not exactly. Some events in there line up with history but a great deal more also it, and natural laws.

I will ask a few more questions and then I will stop and let you respond. First: The Bible explains periods of time and catastrophic events, i.e. the flood, that have been confirmed by scientific studies.

A flood covering the entire earth has never been confirmed rather just the opposite. It's basically impossible, and moreover it didn't happen. It would've left evidence behind. We talk more about that here.

How is it that a book so old can correctly label the big world events but can't explain creation?

Again, it's full of contradictions and nowhere near infallible. Nor is it just one book. It's many books from many different time periods and authors slapped together.

The cultures and the people of the Bible are confirmed throughout historic and scientific studies.

And? Do other religions make up science fiction cultures in their texts?

Jesus Himself is not questioned in His existence. The thing about Christians is we either believe all of the Bible or we believe none of it.

No True Scotsman Fallacy. It's your interpretation and no, there are nearly 40,000 sects of Christianity*. They don't all agree. I also like this religion pigeon on the matter:

History and your own science backs up many portions of the Bible.

If you're going to assert this so many times you could at least provide some evidence and examples to back it up.

Creation just happens to be one that is not 100% decided by science because it can never be proven. How is it that certain parts of the Bible, that were inspired by the same God, can be proven right but the parts that can't are automatically considered fallacy?

None of it was inspired by God because he doesn't exist. And I agree, Creation can never be proven because it's not science.

* Edited after being corrected by hackenslash.

[hackenslash]

[hackenslash]

there are over [strike:t0ihojo6]4,000[/strike:t0ihojo6] 30,000 sects of Christianity.

FIFY.